These words, taken from Psalm 18, were the ones chosen by Bishop Theodore G. Romzha as the motto for his episcopal ministry. At the age of 33, he faced the one of the most brutal and bloody persecutions of a Christian community in modern times. Posted on 11/01/2009 11:45:08 AM PST by Balt
In my homilies to you over the years, I’ve often spoke of our Catholic Faith, and sometimes of our Byzantine Tradition; but I have rarely spoken of the particular Church to which we belong, and of it’s history in Eastern Europe. Our Metropolitan Church is located entirely in the United States; and, the further you travel outside of Pennsylvania, the less you see of any ethnic identity among the members of our parishes; but, as you know, the ancestors of our Church’s original members came from an Orthodox Church which came into union with Rome in 1646 at the Union of Uzhorod, which today is the seat of it’s own Metropolitan Church. I mention this because today is the feast day of one of the first men ever beatified from this shared tradition of Ruthenian Catholicism; and I thought it would not be inappropriate to share with you his story.
In the Liturgy of John Chrysostom, just before the Creed is sung, the priest blesses himself three times and silently says, “I will love you, O Lord, my strength; the Lord is my rock and my refuge.” These words, taken from Psalm 18, were the ones chosen by Bishop Theodore G. Romzha as the motto for his episcopal ministry. At the age of 33, he faced the one of the most brutal and bloody persecutions of a Christian community in modern times.
Theodore Romzha was born of humble parentage on April 14, 1911, in the heart of the colorful district of Maramorosh in Subcarpathian Ruthenia, a small country in between Slovakia and Ukraine which was created at the Treaty of Versailles. He was a pious and gifted young boy, and his only ambition was to become a priest. He received his secondary education in the city of Chust; and, due to his friendly disposition and scholastic achievements, he became one of the most popular students. His popularity increased even more when he proved himself as an all-around athlete, excelling in soccer. At his graduation, he took everybody by surprise when he announced his intention of becoming a priest; and he was sent to Rome for his priestly formation.
He lived at the German-Hungarian College in Rome for the first two years of his studies; then, in 1932, he moved to the Russian Pontifical Seminary, known as the "Russicum," in order to prepare himself for missionary work in the Soviet Union. It was indeed a providential step; since at the "Russicum" he was expected to study communist atheism and its ideology; unwittingly preparing himself for the Soviet occupation of his native land. He was ordained to the priesthood in Rome on Christmas Day, 1936.
In the summer of the following year he came home to celebrate his first Divine Liturgy in his own country with the intention of returning to finish his doctoral dissertation. But, in those days, the priesthood was not an exemption from military conscription; and, instead of returning to Rome, he was drafted into the army and sent to protect his country against the German invasion. To a friend in Rome he wrote: "I am going to the front with a deep conviction of doing the will of God. Therefore, I do not fear what will happen to me." After Father Romzha's discharge from the army in August, 1938, the danger of another approaching war remained. For this reason the bishop of Mukachevo, Alexander Stojka, did not permit him to leave the country, but appointed him to a forgotten parish in the countryside, where the young Father Romzha became a poor pastor among poor people. There were times when he could afford only one meal a day while donating from his own purse to help his needy parishioners. To a curious friend in Rome he wrote: "I live here as a pauper and yet I feel happy and satisfied." Father Romzha was a good and dedicated priest, teaching his parishioners to know and live their Faith by his own example.
In March, 1939, the Hungarians occupied Subcarpathian Ruthenia by force, precipitating both political and ecclesiastical changes. Bishop Stojka was forced by the Hungarian government to reorganize the seminary; and in the fall of 1939, Father Romzha was appointed Spiritual Director and Professor of Philosophy at the Eparchial Seminary in Uzhorod. 
One of his students later recalled: "He was strict and demanding as a Professor, but as a Spiritual Director he was fatherly and kind. He knew how to inspire us and to bring out the best in us. Staying in close contact with us, his students, he was able to transplant into our hearts the main features of his strong priestly character: his dedication, genuine piety and generosity of heart."
Even at the seminary, Father Romzha found time for pastoral work by assisting in neighboring parishes, and conducting missions and retreats for young students. Every penny he earned he generously distributed to the poor. To the mentioned friend in Rome he wrote: "I am living very unpretentiously, and yet my pockets are always empty. But I am not discouraged, since I am working not for the money but to please God." Bishop Stojka greatly appreciated the dedicated work of Father Romzha, and in 1942 elevated him to the rank of Archpriest. Even so, he remained a humble and dedicated priest, inspiring and winning the admiration and respect of all those who met him.
On May 31, 1943, Bishop Stojka died. In view of the uncertainties of the time, the Holy See appointed Archpriest Romzha the Apostolic Administrator of Mukachevo; and his episcopal consecration took place in Uzhorod on September 24, 1944, just as Soviet tanks were rolling into the city. A month later, the entire territory of the Mukachevo Eparchy was occupied by the Red Army. Bishop Romzha was informed that Subcarpathian Ruthenia would be incorporated into postwar Czechoslovakia as an autonomous province; however, it soon became evident that the Soviets would not relinquish this politically strategic region. Consequently, on June 29, 1945, Subcarpathian Ruthenia was officially incorporated into Soviet Ukraine; and the young and inexperienced Bishop Romzha found himself and his flock under Soviet rule.
At first, Bishop Romzha tried not to antagonize the Soviet authorities, in spite of abusive and violent actions committed by the Soviet soldiers against the clergy; but when the Soviet authorities started to expel priests from their parishes at random and confiscate church property, he was forced to protest. The Soviets had a ready answer: to ensure the continuance of his ministry and the safety of his clergy, Bishop Romzha must renounce all allegiance to the Pope, place himself under the jurisdiction of the Partriarch of Moscow, and encourage his flock to do the same. Bishop Romzha immediately replied: 
"I would rather die than betray my Church!" Thus began the open persecution of the Byzantine Catholic Church in Subcarpathia. In the fall of 1945, Patriarch Alexis of Moscow appointed Bishop Nestor Sydoruk to head the Orthodox Eparchy of Mukachevo. Sydoruk was announced by the Soviet press to be the only legally appointed bishop in Ruthenia, and received full support from the Soviet authorities. Intimidation and imprisonment of Byzantine Catholic priests followed; and the official liquidation the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Mukachevo was underway.
Rather than flee, Bishop Romzha decided to fight. Although the Soviet authorities confiscated his car, he traveled long distances by horse and buggy, just to reassure his faithful and to encourage them to persevere until death, saying, "They are taking from us our own priests and churches, but they will never be able to take away our faith from us." During these extensive and dangerous visitations, Bishop Romzha tried to sustain the faith of the weak, to reassure the wavering, and to plead with those intimidated: "Faith is our greatest treasure on this earth,” he said. “To preserve our faith we must even be ready to lay down our life. If we must die, then let us die as true martyrs, defending our faith. One thing is sure: that we never will abandon our faith nor betray our Church." The faithful, supported by dedicated clergy, responded enthusiastically, and stood united behind their fearless shepherd. Even some Orthodox parishes, seeing the violence and injustice perpetrated by the Soviets, asked Bishop Romzha to accept them back into the Catholic fold.
During these days of violence and open persecution Bishop Romzha offered his prayers and sufferings for the perseverance of his clergy and the faithful he risked so much to serve. He was sustained by his unshakable confidence in God's Providence; and down deep in his courageous heart he vividly felt the protection of the Theotokos, the Mother of God. There was no power that could shake his loyalty to the Holy See; in his mind there was only "one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church," established by our Lord on the rock of Peter, and governed by His Vicar on earth. For this truth Bishop Romzha was ready to sacrifice his own life.
Unable to intimidate Bishop Romzha, the Soviets decided to assassinate him, and staged a highway accident. The horse drawn carriage in which the Bishop was returning home from the rededication of the parish church of Lavki, near Mukachevo, was rammed by a military truck. Soldiers dressed in civilian clothing then emerged and beat him; but, when another truck came by, they fled. Bishop Romzha was badly injured, but survived; and the driver of the second truck took him to the hospital in Mukachevo where, after a few days, he began to regain his strength. Then suddenly, early on the morning of November 1, 1947, he was found dead. The night before Bishop Romzha's death, the director of the hospital and a strange nurse, who had disappeared the next day, were seen entering the Bishop's room about midnight. The Soviet authorities announced that Bishop Romzha died from "injuries sustained in a traffic accident"; but a later investigation showed that he had, in fact, been poisoned.
Bishop Romzha was beatified by Pope John Paul II on June 27, 2001.1 His relics are enshrined in the Cathedral of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in Uzhorod.
by Father Michael Venditti
1 At the time of Bishop Romzha's beatification, there was some controversy regarding whether he would be recognized as a martyr for the faith, since death by poison does not involve the shedding of blood. In reality, the controversy—behind closed doors—was whether his beatification would damage relations with the Orthodox. In the end, Bishop Romzha was designated a martyr; but it is disturbing to note that the very brief biography of Blessed Theodore Romzha which appeared at the time on the Holy See's web site emphasized his pastoral zeal, nearly glossed over his martyrdom, and made no mention at all of the persecution of his Eparchy at the hands of the Orthodox. This same patern of denile can also be seen in the treatment of the Ukrainian Catholic saint and bishop, St. Josephat, whose martyrdom is often attributed to political zealots, even though the evidence clearly shows that he was murdered by Orthodox zealots determined to stop his efforts to bring Orthodox Christians into union with Rome in an Eastern Catholic Church. Even in modern treatments of a Catholic saint as seminal as St. Thomas More, there seems a new reluctance to recognize anyone who gave his life specifically for the Papal Primacy. Consider Romzha's words: "...we never will abandon our faith nor betray our Church." Clearly, for him, as for Josephat and More, the juridical and theological primacy of the Bishop of Rome was part of the deposit of faith. Hence, the derogatory practice of the Orthodox Churches to refer to anyone in union with Rome, even Ruthenian Catholics and Ukrainian Catholics, as "Roman Catholics." —PP
Excellent post. Thanks!
Ping.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
“Even in modern treatments of a Catholic saint as seminal as St. Thomas More, there seems a new reluctance to recognize anyone who gave his life specifically for the Papal Primacy.”
I suspect this is because there is a current enthusiasm for a reunion with Orthodoxy which will, if accomplished, put aside the sort of Papal Primacy notions for which the author seems to believe +Theodore and +Thomas Moore died. That brave and doubtless very holy men died for an ecclesiastical theology which right now the Vatican is negotiating away, at least to some extent, is probably an embarrassment right now.
If I were a loyal Ruthenian Catholic, descended from generations of loyal Ruthenian Catholics, I’d be furious.
“Hence, the derogatory practice of the Orthodox Churches to refer to anyone in union with Rome, even Ruthenian Catholics and Ukrainian Catholics, as “Roman Catholics.”
With all due respect, Father, I’ve never heard any Orthodox Christian refer to Ruthenian or Ukrainian Catholics as “Roman Catholics”. We used to call you folks Uniates, but I understand that that is also now considered derogatory, even though it is regularly used by the likes of Cardinal Kasper. I take it the proper term is Ruthenian Catholics or Ukrainian Catholics?
Not even a little bit, K.
“Not even a little bit, K. “
For my own personal reasons, I hope you are right. There is no reason to believe a reunion now will last any longer than the False Union of Florence did and that will have another 600 years of consequences. But I fear you are not, at least not if what I am told the discussions were at Cyprus last week is correct.
You wrote:
“I’ve never heard any Orthodox Christian refer to Ruthenian or Ukrainian Catholics as “Roman Catholics”.”
I have. Here’s a quick example of something close to it:
Here’s an older example:
“Also, Blessed Metropolitan Anthony sometimes refers to Uniates as “Uniates”, sometimes “Latins” or “Roman Catholics”, and sometimes refers to all Roman Catholics, Latin-Rite and Eastern-Rite, simply as “Latins” or “Roman Catholics”. This lack of distinction derives from the great hierarch’s observation, expressed elsewhere, that the Unia is not ‘unchanged Orthodoxy with the commemoration of the Pope’, as some maintained, but a complete acceptance of Roman Catholicism: ‘They can in no way accept this simple truth, that the Unia is a complete entry into the Roman Catholic Church with the recognition of the Orthodox Church as a schism..., with the recognition of all the Latin ‘saints’ and with a condemnation of the Orthodox saints as having been schismatics outside the true Church...’ So, for him, to call them “Latins”, “Roman Catholics”, etc. is just as accurate as “Uniates”, and he uses the terms interchangeably.” http://www.trueorthodoxy.info/con_met_anthony_khrapovitsky_economy.shtml
It’s also my daughter’s birthday. I’d say she’s a saint in the making but anyone that knows her would laugh at me. LOL! She is definitely one of a kind!
Thanks for this post!
“I have. Here’s a quick example of something close to it:
Odd article. I’ve never heard of the author, but as I have said in the past, I am merely the simple grandson of simple Greek peasants.
“Here’s an older example:
“Also, Blessed Metropolitan Anthony sometimes refers to Uniates as “Uniates”, sometimes “Latins” or “Roman Catholics”, and sometimes refers to all Roman Catholics, Latin-Rite and Eastern-Rite, simply as “Latins” or “Roman Catholics”.”
I’m afraid the good Metropolitan went to his reward rather before my time, old as I am. But your point is well taken. Apparently people do call Ruthenian and Ukrainian Catholics Roman Catholics. I’m surprised. Clearly they are not.
Here is the USA they're just called "Byzantine Catholics". I regularly attend Byzantine Catholic church, though I was raised a Roman Catholic and technically remain in the Latin Rite. From what I've seen most of them don't get offended at being called "roman catholic" since A) Many of them were raised in the Roman Catholic tradition but ended in the Byzantine church, and B) They're proud of the roman pontiff. But I think they do get annoyed when people confuse them with "Latin Rite" Catholics in the "western" tradition.
Technically Byzantine Catholics are also "roman catholics" since they're under the authority of the Pope in Rome, though I think they're not member of the "Roman Catholic Church", per say. It's probably how Canadians could be technically called "americans" since they live in North America.
We need more posts like this about our Byzantine brethren. Very inspiring. I love hearing about the Ukranian Catholics, too. The graces God has given to those who suffered under the destructive and repressive Russian communists is truly inspiring and notice to us RCs living in America of how we should behave under oppression -that our time may soon be coming
Is that why do they recite the Creed without the Filioque? And if they are Latins why are they sporting that quasi-Orthodox lituregical rite, instead of the Novus Ordo Mass?
Does htis look "Latin" to you?
Rutnenian bishops, Orthodox vestments, new pews just as in Orthodox chruches...
From time to time, EWTN runs a program on the oppression of the Ukrainian Catholics under communist rule. The program includes film footage of a wrecking ball ready to knock over the onion dome over the church as parishioners scatter carrying icons and sacramentals that they then hid in their homes. It also includes personal testimonies from those who lived through the experience including descriptions of priests traveling under the guise of night and hiding in a home until the following day when they could say Mass. Many of the were caught and martyred for the faith. The good news is that today, in the Ukraine, the seminaries are filled to overflowing with priestly candidates as are the women's religious orders. If this is a topic that interest you, then do monitor their web site for future rebroadcasts.
Also, see my post above.
“...and technically remain in the Latin Rite.”
I have been told that there is quite a process to change from one Rite to another and that usually a request to a bishop for permission to change is denied. Any idea why?
I wish “Romans” looked more like them!
“I wish “Romans” looked more like them!”
Its the hats! :)
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?s=d6df271bfdbba65d15d2c92b990bc03e&p=5497261&postcount=102
The “hats” do ROCK!
Interesting! Although I don’t know the history for why there is no source connection for Alexandria.
“Interesting! Although I don’t know the history for why there is no source connection for Alexandria.”
It should be connected to the Roman Empire. Interestingly, the Church of Jerusalem didn’t attain Episcopal status until after Alexandria. +Mark the Evagelist was the founder of the diocese of Alexandria and Alexandria is one of the three original Episcopates, Rome, Antioch and Alexandria.
The Patriarch of Alexandria uses the title “Pope” and in fact has used it longer than the bishop of Rome. His other titles are:
Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, the Pentapolis, Ethiopia and All Africa,
Father of Fathers,
Shepherd of Shepherds,
Bishop of Bishops,
The Thirteenth Apostle,
Arbitrator of Christendom
Our little Byzantine parish is the first in the USA to be named for Bl. Theodore. And, today, we had our first Divine Liturgy in two months, with our new priest, and a reception. We have much to celebrate.
Yes, apparently we Catholics need written permission from both the outgoing bishop and incoming bishop of the two rites to "officially" change rites in the Catholic church (in my case I'd actually need permission from the Cardinal since I'm under the jurisdiction of the archdiocese of Chicago). However, since Vatican II there's really no need to "officially" change rites to participate fully in another rite's parish. It's more for self-reflective spirtual fulfillment. The only real difference is that right now I'm a Roman Catholic worshiping WITH Byzantine Catholics. If I officially switched I'd be worshiping AS a Byzantine Catholic. Nevertheless, as a Roman Catholic I was able to become a parish member in good standing of a Byzantine Catholic congregation and participate fully in all their sacraments and holy days. I'm not sure where the clause is but basically the Catholic church ruled that any Catholic can fulfill their religious requirements at any Catholic church in communion with Rome.
From what I'm told the reason they're really scrutinizing the "changing rites" thing is that there have been a number of Roman Catholics looking to get married and become a priest, and they realize that there's a loophole that they could do so if they changed rites for the sole purpose of getting married (some of them have even tried to "switch back" to latin rite later on) The Catholic church allowed married priests in the eastern rites because it's part of their cultural traditions dating back hundreds of years, and doesn't want anyone switching rites who comes from a different culture tradition and is simply a cafeteria Catholic trying to "bend the rules" for personal reasons.
I also hear there are some people who want to convert from Roman Catholic to Eastern Orthodox but it takes a while to absorb all the changes, so they use membership the eastern catholic churches as a transitional stepping stone. My guess is the Vatican frowns on that, too.
I was told by the local Byzantine Catholic priest that it's actually very easy and quick for a lay Catholic with no religious orders to change rites if you have a spiritual reason for doing so (i.e., I find eastern Christian services more beautiful and enlightening than the rite I was born into), but the clause that you're only allowed to change rites once in your life still holds. I'm not sure if I'd be fully comfortable "as" a Byzantine Catholic, as they do things like give infants communion that's pretty alien to the culture I grew up in. Nevertheless I prefer their services over the "roman" western style ones.
Doesn't it work pretty similarity in the Orthodox Christianity, if someone wanted to say, switch from being a member of the Russian Orthodox Church to being a member of the Greek Orthodox Church?
Within the Church, it is not necessary to petition for a change of rites. One simply switches parishes. It is a lot of red tape and paperwork to make an official switch, which causes Rome to scowl. So it's simpler just to start going at the Byzantine parish without any formalities. The bishops probably don't like it because the shift is almost always Eastward, and to the Latin bishops, it's like "sheep stealing."
“I also hear there are some people who want to convert from Roman Catholic to Eastern Orthodox but it takes a while to absorb all the changes, so they use membership the eastern catholic churches as a transitional stepping stone.”
Interesting. You know, contrary to what one might think, given the almost complete identity of theology, it has been my experience that Roman Catholics generally have a very difficult time converting to Orthodoxy. In fact, it may be that near total identity which causes the problem. The Latins think they understand, but since the mindset is so different, they really don’t and it takes time to develop that worldview.
“Doesn’t it work pretty similarity in the Orthodox Christianity, if someone wanted to say, switch from being a member of the Russian Orthodox Church to being a member of the Greek Orthodox Church?”
Not that I have ever heard of, and we have a number of people in our parish who have come in from other jurisdictions as well as people who have left our parish and joined one of another jurisdiction. I’ve been on the parish council for years and never saw any “requests for transfer”. What we do need are copies of the baptism, chrismation and marriage records for our records and those of the Metropolis.
May God grant your little parish many years!
Technical question —> how do the old folks in Eastern Churches stand for so long? do they have to sit on the floors? What happens in case of them.
For the sick, and very old, there are chairs along the wall. But most elderly stand right along with everyone else for an hour and a half to two hours. They have been doing this all their life. It is quite amazing and even somewhat miraculous to see that.
I was particularly struck by that notion in Tokyo's magnificent Orthodox Cathedral, even where very, very old, many with a cane in their hand, piously stood. Even if for a moment I was distracted with any discomfort of my own, just one look at them took all the discomfort away.
The choir also stood and sang. It may be difficult for visitors and new converts, but you get so immersed in the liturgy that you don't even think about it.
I remember a small Greek church in Lynchburg, Va, which, like most American Greek churches had pews. But one stands throughout the liturgy anyway, so that makes very little difference except when the Epistles are read.
There was a Serb parishioner who always stood in the back because it was inconceivable to him, as he told me, to sit in church. Indeed, for someone who stood all his life in church, sitting in it is awkward. Not so long ago, I visited a Catholic church for a Traditional Latin Mass, and stood throughout in the back (so as not to draw attention). It is my understanding that even in the Catholic Church it is always proper to stand.
You know, Kolo, you are spot on. Catholics who cross over to Orthodoxy always remain "Catholic" to some extent in their mindset, not that it is wrong, but they don't think Orthodox.
It's like trying to learn a closely related language. I know when I took Russian (for an easy "A" I must admit) I had a lot of "transference." My mind unconsciously kept interfering and 'correcting' my Russian, especially with accents, which often leads to different pronunciation.
Thus, the Russian word for a teacher is identical to Serbian (uchitel'). The Russians place the accent in the middle (on "i"), the Serbs at the very beginning (on "u"). The Russians pronounce it as uchítyel' and the Serbs as úchitel'. Because the word is identical, your habit draws you yo tour native pronunciation.
The same happens with words like voda (water). The Russians place the accent at the end, thus the "o" is unaccented. In Russian, unaccented "o" is pronounced as an "ah", thus in Russian it sounds as vahdáh. In Serbian the stress is on "o" and the word is pronounced as vóhdah. But in vodka, the stress in on "o" in both languages and the word is pronouced identically.
Many White Russians emigrated to Serbia after the October Revolution, mainly because the Serbian Orthodox Church gave Russian Church Outside of Russia an independent See. Some friends of our family must have been young children when their parents brought them to Serbia, and despite that, the Russians never lost their Russian accents even though they spoke Serbian like natives.
If something is very, very close, complete transformation is almost impossible. That's why Japanese converts, coming from a completely alien, even pagan background, become more Orthodox than anyone else.
Good for you!
Depends on the Church. In Greek and Antiochan churches in America, where trhere are usually pews, Greeks tend to kneel (although this is against the discipline required by the First Ecumenical Council that all pryaer be done standing). The only time when they do not kneel is duirng the first 40 days after the Paschal Sunday.
The Orthodox Church of America churches which have no pews, the congregation prostrates, down on their knees and face to the ground.
In Churches with pews that is not possible, of course. Here is a very good video of the anaphora (preparation of the Eucharist) worth watching in its entirety in one such Orthodox church.
In the Russian Church, the moment of consecration is inaudible because the prayers are silent and the choir is singing and the curtain is drawn over the Royal Doors. You can only tell by seeing the soles of the priest's shoes, as he prostrates (along with everyone in the altar area).
In the Serbian Church, which officially still follows the Mt. Athos Typikon, the prayers are silent, the curtains are drawn, the choir is singing and the actual consecration is inaudible. Some dissident Serbian bishops indoctrinated in Greece, follow the Greek typikon of loud prayer and open Royal Doors, but and the congregation either prostrates (rare), makes deep bows, or makes the sign of the cross.
On the other hand, postratations are common on Holy (Great) Thursday, Friday, Saturday, or on the feats of the veneration of the Cross, or on Pentecost Sunday, but not for the Eucharist because in Slavonic churches one simply odens't knowmhen the consecration takes place.
Metania, or "small" prostration (sign of the cross, bending at the waist and touching the ground with the right hand, palm up, three times), is common when venerating icons especially of Christ, or the divine liturgy (see below)
Here is an example of metania
You may appreciate the richness of eastern liturgy (of St. John Chrysostom, in use since the 4th century AD) in this Byzantine-Catholic church, at the moment of consecration (the service is only slightly different from the Orthodox service in some mannerism)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.