On the paramount importance of Orthodoxy for Carpatho-Rusyns
What is Rus’? We know of Carpathian Rus’, Kievan Rus’, Galician-Volhynian Rus’, Lithuanian Rus’ juxtaposed against Moscovian Rus’, and a multitude of others throughout history. Many of these words do not simply represent nations, but also ideas. It has even been said that Rus’, in fact, is not a nation, but an idea. There is a Rusynophile idea, a Moscophile idea, a Ukrainophile idea, in history there was even a Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian idea of Rus’[1]. All of these lay claim to it, but we can see these are very different understandings of the term. So how is it that there are different understandings of Rus’? And if it is an idea, then how should we go about understanding it?
The greatest words spoken on this matter perhaps come in the form of the mystifying maxim: “You can’t understand Rus’ with your mind. Rus’ is something which you can only believe in.”[2] Believe—that is a word you would apply more to an idea. In the Old Slavic language, the word “to believe” «вѣрити» (viriti) literally means “to [have] faith”, coming from the word Vira «Вѣра» meaning Faith. Faith—now that is something not applied to just any belief, it is more appropriately applied to a religion. For one to believe in Rus’ one has to have faith in the central idea at its foundation. If it were not complicated enough, there is another Rus’ and she is the key to understanding all of this.
Her name is Holy Rus’, and she is most dear to them that know. For the sake of Holy Rus’, the Carpathians became a Little Golgotha; for her and her King, with the blood of countless martyrs like St. Maxim Sandovich, red did the river Tisa flow. “Holy Rus’, keep ye the Orthodox Faith! In her is your foundation!” said another great Hieromartyr, who suffered under the Bolshevik yoke. While anyone who knows the traditional Rusyn greeting: “Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory Forever!” knows the name of her King, due to centuries of religious wars and persecutions, it had often become harder to practice the true faith of Holy Carpathian Rus’—Orthodox Christianity according to the Cyrillo-Methodian traditions.
The Orthodox Faith presents a call to holiness to all peoples, and Holy Rus’ is about the Rusian peoples, working to answering that call. It is not and never was meant to be a nationalist maxim, as it calls the people not to an earthly Rus’, but to seek above all else citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven. Rus’ was called holy because of the way the peoples worked to live a pious Christian life. It is not claiming that Rus’ is the holiest of nations or holier than others, rather it is the dedication of Rus’ to Orthodoxy, and the declaration that the national idea of Rus’ is about this striving towards holiness and to please God. God is Holy, he “reposes among the holy”, and in calling everyone to communion with Him, he expects all his people to strive for holiness.[3]
Orthodox Christianity calls all peoples—not just Greeks and Slavs—to this same holiness, to become even sons and daughters of God.
In modern times, however, many young Rusyns, have moved away from religion, and tragically away from Christ and His Church, quite possibly, because they’ve confused Orthodox Christianity for religion!
But the reality is Orthodoxy is not and never was meant to be religion! Orthodoxy is communion with Christ through the sacraments of His Holy Church, membership in which constitutes real membership in His Body.[4]
In fact, Orthodoxy is about man becoming “god” through Jesus Christ! Have you ever heard this before? If not, it may be because early diaspora communities were often more focused on preserving religion as a decorative element of their ethnic culture, rather than the Orthodox Faith which is its foundation. As a result, faith became fossilized and passive, not an active, living, and dynamic way of life.
Orthodoxy simply sounds like what most people call religion, and many people confuse it for religion, because they do not understand its origins and relation to Orthodoxy.
Fr. Alexander Schmemann, the teacher of many great Rusyn theologians like Fr. Thomas Hopko, would say “Orthodoxy is in a most profound sense the end of all religion”.[5]
It is the end, in the sense that it makes obsolete the worldly or man-made understanding of religion.[6]
In the old sense, religion, as it appeared in human history, was the attempt of primitive man to understand the concept of the divine, natural phenomena, and his place in relation to them in the universe. Man didn’t understand lightning, the ocean, or the sky, so he invented gods of thunder, the seas, and the heavens. In a way, this was man’s attempt to reach up into the cosmos and try to understand God.
We as Orthodox Christians believe that you cannot understand God in his nature, you can only believe in him, and “participate in his energies”, but it’s not possible for man to understand God.
However, in the same light as the Archangel said to the Holy Ever-Virgin Mary, though it’s not possible for man, for God, all things are possible.
Jesus Christ did not come to simply found another religion! All other religions on earth were founded of course by men. Why would God have to become man, and have to suffer painfully on the cross, just to found a religion? It doesn’t make sense! If he just wanted to found a religion, he could have simply sent a prophet—a man—to do it. Why instead did God become man?
The Holy Fathers tell us this was to renew our nature, as a matter of fact, they would go even farther and say that “God became man so that man can become God.”[7]
In Orthodoxy we call this Theosis.[8] And I would argue that if someone hasn’t been taught about Theosis, then they haven’t been taught enough about Orthodoxy to make an educated judgment.
Now that is something that only God can do. It was precisely for that reason that God became man, and to paraphrase St. John the Golden-mouth, “did not cease to do all things for us, until he delivered us from the jaws of death to the gates of paradise.”
This is what Orthodoxy is about—it is a call to holiness. And this brings us back to Holy Rus’.
Holy Rus’ is not a nationalist idea, or even a pan-Russian triumphalist idea contrary to what many believe. Rus’ was not called Holy because one of the Rusian states were particularly Holy, or as if to imply that Rusian people are better than others. It was not even the people of Rus’ who first called it Holy!
Rus’ was first called Holy in our tradition by Saint Maxim the Greek in the 16th century.[9]
It was the Greeks who delivered the Orthodox Faith to the lands of Rus’, in the case of Subcarpathian Rus’, by the mission of Saints Cyril and Methodius,[10] prior to the later baptism of Kievan Rus’ in 988.
Thus it was providence that Rus’ was later called “Holy” by a saintly son of the people who aforetime baptized her, recognizing her now as equal and sister.
Rus’ was called “Holy”, because in the 17th century, simple Ruthenian peasants were known to keep prayer rules comparable to that of monastics, praying the hours and compline, and those services which lay people may in their homes. Rus’ was called Holy, because in those days when politically minded people imposed the Unia, it was the simple priests, monks, and lay people, supported by the Cossacks, who defended Orthodoxy. Rus’ was called Holy, because it was Orthodox grandmothers baptizing their grandchildren against the tyrannical rules of soviet authorities and at great risk.
Holy Rus’ is about Rusyn people, or whomever considers themselves part of Rus’, answering that call to holiness by living a Christian Life through the sacraments of the Church, and doing good works in the world, so that people will again look upon Rus’, and seeing her good works, and how her people love God and each other, and call her Holy again.
Unfortunately, there may have been a failure of properly catechizing or “churching” young Rusyns and Orthodox Christians in America. Many who grew up in the diaspora, especially prior to the labors of great Rusyn theologians like Metropolitans Laurus (Škurla) and Nicholas (Smisko) and Protopresbyters Thomas Hopko and Daniel Hubiak (to name only a few), to reemphasize a more Greek-patristic and less Latin-legalistic mindset in Orthodoxy,[11] had perhaps never even heard the term Theosis, or at least seldom had it explained to them. They may have attended church only a few times a year, and perhaps received confession and Holy Communion even less!
The truth is many of the first Orthodox parishes were not really founded with a missionary focus.[12] They were largely oriented towards serving specific ethnic communities, and in worst case scenarios, some became practically ethnic clubs. The Rusyns, already lacking a state, were also ecclesiastically divided in America by several major jurisdictions.
As a result, considering most later generation Rusyn immigrants grew up in America not speaking Rusyn, or without contact with a concrete homeland, they did not cultivate a strong distinct Rusyn diaspora culture, as well as for example, the White Russian émigrés or Ukrainians.
Immigrant children inevitably became Americanized, having not been taught well true Orthodoxy, in communities more focused on preserving the “kitchen culture” of a land that no longer existed, than on Orthodox missionary work, or on proactively developing Rusyn culture. It’s no wonder that once they became Americanized, many had no way of contacting either that archaic culture, or Orthodoxy if they wanted to.
When many only “knew” that they were “Russians” from the “Austro-Hungarian Slavic areas of Galicia, Russia, and Eastern Europe”—whatever that means.[13] We should not be shocked that they were not familiar with Orthodox spirituality, which only comes from an active sacramental life, by reading the lives of the saints, by prayer and fasting and good works.
Some communities seemed more focused on having yearly dances and festivals with delicious food (which this author admittingly loves very much, and highly recommends you try the halushki, blini, and Chicken Kiev). It is good to promote our Greek and Slavic cultures. I love discussing all aspects of them, everything from Slavic folklore to pop-culture, from Sandra Dee to video games like the Witcher 3. But there must be something deeper…
In Orthodoxy we have this concept of the Dobrotoliubie or the Philokalia, which means “the love of that which is beautiful.” It’s even been said that “beauty will save the world.” And it shall! By reminding us to seek through Christ, and the Eucharist which is the medicine of immortality, the restoration of our human nature to its original beauty, as it should have been.
It was Orthodoxy which from the beginning taught our people to see and love what is truly good and beautiful in creation, and to participate in what Tolkien would call “Subcreation”. We should love all the beautiful things our world and culture have to offer, but we must seek first Christ, and the Faith which not only established our peoples and the universe, but made them good, beautiful, and holy—our first love.
And so, in the same way the “stone which the builders forsook” was found again in the field, and became the cornerstone of the ancient temple, may the mighty Carpathian rock of Faith, which has too long languished, be lifted up again from her lonely mountainous meadows.
Even if they say this time has passed, and it has all fallen, just as a seed from the last harvest which falls into the earth dies, but brings forth life; with faith, even the smallest Carpathian stone, be she even smaller than a mustard seed, may yet grow into a mountain.
May it be that the Orthodox Faith of Cyril and Methodius become again the cornerstone of the Rusyn people, may it be lifted up, towering in majesty, so that all the nations would look upon her Cross-Crowned hills with wonder in their eyes, and call her not simply Rus’ again, but Holy Rus’, as aforetime did Saint Maxim, the Greek wonderworker of God.
[1] Exemplified by the phrase “Gente Rutheni, Natione Poloni” (of the Ruthenian race and the Polish nation). This was a common ethno-political identity among the Slavic Orthodox princely and noble population of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, who integrated with the Polish noble society and cultural ideas like Sarmatism, and the Golden Liberties, but still kept their Rus’ and Orthodox identity. See the lives of St. Peter Mohyla, Prince Konstanty Ostrogski, Adam Kisiel, and others, such as members of the Korybut and Wiśniowiecki families.
[2] A slight paraphrase or rather an alternative translation of the famous words of the poet and Slavic philosopher Fyodor Tyutchev, (1803-1873).
[3] 1 Peter 1:15-16
[4] The Church is called the Bride of Christ, and therefore we call her Holy Mother Church, because as ancient Christians articulated as early as the third century, no one who does not have the Church as mother may call God Father.
[5] See For the Life of the World, by Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann. Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press. Crestwood, N.Y. 1998. Pgs. 22-25.
[6] Ibid.
[7] E.g., Saint Athanasius, On the Incarnation, §54 in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Series II, Vol. IV. Pg. 66 Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.vii.ii.liv.html
[8] It should be clear this does not mean the ontological differences between God and man disappear, or that men become deities to be worshiped, but rather by Theosis they are united to God.
[9] In the original Greek: “της αιωτάτου ‘Ρωσίας”, in Максим Грек — поэт-«гипербореец» Бушкович П. See also: Бушкович П. Максим Грек — поэт — «гипербореец» // Труды Отдела древнерусской литературы (Пушкинский Дом) РАН (далее — ТОДРЛ). Т. 47. СПб., 1993. С. 228, 240, and “Two Unknown Greek Texts of Maxim the Greek”, Dr. Paul Bushkovitch Yale University in Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, Neue Folge, Bd. 32, H. 4 (1984), pp. 559-561.
[10] “Most experts, including Joannicio Basilovits, Michaelem Lutskay, Archimandrite Vasily (Pronin), and others) link the spread of Greek-Rite Christianity to the region with the Equal-to-the-Apostles Saints Cyril and Methodius, or at the very least, with their students.” From “The Orthodox Church in Transcarpathia—A Brief Historical Overview”, Danilets, Yurij V. https://orthochristian.com/132049.html
[11] See Georges Florovsky “The Ways of Russian Theology”, and “Aspects of Church History: Collected Works Vol. 4”. While this author takes issues with the implications of the term “western captivity” of Orthodox theology (with great admiration for Florovsky), it is undeniable that particularly Ruthenian theology had strong western influence, and most leading 20th century theologians were focused on what Florovsky called the “neo-patristic synthesis” or the other leading arc words of this epoch, a “return to the fathers”. Due to western pietistic and legalistic influence, many generations not fully educated in Orthodoxy, may have misjudged it, applying to it aspects of roman catholic or protestant theology, (for example, that Christians are allegedly “judgmental”), which are actually alien to Orthodox thought. Early immigrants and their children, where often unable to consume the depths of Orthodox patristics and spirituality, because works were either unavailable, or later untranslated into English; the Slavic homelands, occupied by communists, were not in a position to do much better. While the east was practicing martyrdom, the labor of advancing Orthodox theology fell on great 20th century theologians of the diaspora. While their theoretical work began in the early 20th century, often this patristic renaissance only began to be applied to the average American parish by the late 20th century. As a result, this may have led to a certain “lost generation” among the Orthodox Americans, which was particularly exacerbated among the Rusyns due to their circumstances.
[12] For more information, see the extremely valuable research of Fr. Daniel Franzen: “In other words, most parishes were (especially at the beginning of the 20th century) founded by laymen and through “grassroots” type efforts…concerned about things such as where and how they were going to bury their dead, baptize their children, and marry their sons and daughters. In locales such as northeastern Pennsylvania, the immigrants who established these parishes were not missionaries but simple, hard-working coal miners. This non-missionary character remains to this day. This is not to say that these parishes are not welcoming to inquirers or concerned about the souls of the non-Orthodox.” Franzen, Daniel. “The Mayfield Parish, Congregationalism, and the American Orthodox Experience in the Twentieth Century.” Jordanville, 2019. Source: ROCOR Studies, https://www.rocorstudies.org/2020/06/24/the-mayfield-parish-congregationalism-and-the-american-orthodox-experience-in-the-twentieth-century/
[13] Such statements displaying a lack of national self-awareness among Rusyns was characteristic of the “old diaspora”.