Talk:Metropolis of Pittsburgh (Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church)

Editing
I have edited the second paragraph - which formerly stated that the Metropolia had ordinary jurisdiction over "parishes of other Byzantine Rite traditions that do not have an established hierarchy in the United States, including the Italo-Albanians, Hungarians, Slovaks, and Croatians". The edited text reflects that its jurisdiction is over the faithful (not parishes) of certain designated Churches of the Slav Tradition within the Byzantine Rite - specifically the Byzantine Hungarians, Slovaks, and Croats. The Metropolia's authority is based on the documents that erected its predecessor jurisdiction and is not encompassing of the Italo-Albanians or any other Byzantine faithful who are without hierarchy in the US (most notably the Russians, who remain subject to Latin ordinaries, and the Bielorusins, who did as well, until their sole parish was canonically suppressed). The misapprehension stated here was probably based on the fact that one of the Metropolia's eparchies (Van Nuys) established a parish to serve an Italo-Greek community of faithful in Las Vegas - that does not serve to accord the Metropolia jurisdiction over the Arberesh.

There are other aspects of this piece which need editing as well. I'll add it to a list of several that I hope to tackle. Irish Melkite 10:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jurisdiction over Slovaks?
As far as I know, the Vatican documents creating the Pittsburgh Exarchate and its derivatives make no mention of Slovaks. In fact, most of the hierarchs strenuously denied the existence of "Slovaks of the Byzantine Rite". It was only after a petition drive in the 1970s by a few Slovak-oriented members to 1) have the Vatican establish a "Slovak Greek Catholic Eparchy" in the U.S. along the lines of the Canadian example or, failing that, 2) force the Pittsburgh hierarchy to acknowledge the Slovak component of the membership, that the more recent official publications began to describe the Pittsburgh Metropolia as originally inclusive of Rusins [sic], Croats, Hungarians, and Slovaks. I believe this is revisionist history. -- Lemko Rusyn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

How can this be classed as low importance within the Catholicism project? It functions as an independent sui juris particular rite church, and yet it doesn't have nearly the same amount of information as the Diocese of Pittsburgh page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.28.173 (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________

I completely agree with explanations here of the "Slovak Greek Catholic" debate in the historical Ruthenian American Church. The hierarchy did specifically emphasize a Rusyn identity, staying away from any notion of "Slovak Greek Catholics". Archbishop-Metropolitan Stephen J. Kocisko in particular, emphasized a uniquely Carpatho-Ruthenian identity. Even now, this is the first mention that I have ever seen, where mentioned has been made that the Pittsburgh Metropolia has jurisdiction over Slovaks. The perception rather has been that faithful of the Greek Catholic Church who are from Slovakia are ethnically Rusyns or Carpatho-Ukrainians, who speak as their primary language not Slovak, but Rusyn, which is a dialect of the Ukrainian language (see Paul Magoci's writings on this topic).

Since the evolution of the Slovak state following the breakdown of the Soviet Union, there have been significant developments in the Greek Catholic Church in that nation. Even before independence, pressure from the Soviet-backed government persuaded certain clergy in the former Czechoslovakia to adopt the use of contemporary Slovak in the services. These innovations however, do not seem (at least to me), to have a bearing on the various classifications served by the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Province. Munib kyiv

Moving from Byzantine to Ruthenian
(Also at Fastifex talk) The history of the use of "Byzantine" for the Pittsburgh Metropolia is simple. In Austria-Hungary the term, independent of nationality or ethnicity, was Greek-Catholic; in the US, "Greek" was confused with nationality rather than liturgical tradition, so the term Byzantine was adopted - faithful to the original term but avoiding the ambiguity. As pointed out in the texts, the church has a multi-ethnic demographic and history. At the same time, a problem with the label "Ruthenian" is that it historically includes Ukrainians who have a distinct sui juris church. Finally, it is noted that this ostensible precision has not been applied to Wiki pages of all of the other Catholic churches of Byzantine tradition.

The Archeparchy's name, officially used by Rome, includes "Byzantine", not "Ruthenian"; the people who constitute that church use the word "Byzantine" or "Greek" in self-reference farm far more so than Ruthenian. I think these usages, particulary the latter - the name used by people whose bear the name - should be respected. The imposition of an alien name should be avoided. I would request that the pages are moved back to the original. July 11, 2015 97.121.201.32 (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The catholic-hierarchy.org site may be helpful in clarifying this. It gets information from the Annuario Pontificio. On that site, the Archeparchy is listed as "ritus byzantini", while the eparchies of Parma and Passaic are listed with the term "ruthenorum". If the Latin names show this variety, it is not surprising that the English names also do, and there is no need to make them artificially consistent in WP. -- Bistropha (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be useful for Wikipedia users to be consistent on this matter in the name of the Archeparchy as the name of the Church. The W article on the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church says it is made up of 2 communities, European and American. It calls the American part the Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh.  The Archeparchy calls itself BC.  The Catholic hierarchy site is very useful but also does not correct mistakes, and so needs to be verified.  My main concerns are a) the Archeparchy calls itself Byzantine, and generally members of the Church do so in my limited experience, b) readers might be confused into thinking that the BCC and the RGCC were two different things, and c) it is annoying to me to have the first sentence of any Wiki article use a title different from that of the name of the article.Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ruthenian Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105114101/http://www.parma.org/ to http://www.parma.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ruthenian Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716062352/http://www.archeparchy.org/page/metropolia/metropolia.htm to http://www.archeparchy.org/page/metropolia/metropolia.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)