Dear Gaudior,
You raise a fascinating point re: commemorations!
In the UGCC, for one, the Pope of Rome is commemorated four times during the DL . . .
Originally, after the Union of Brest, ONLY the Uniate Metropolitan of Kyiv commemorated the Pope of Rome - and this only once during the DL's he celebrated.
The Pope's name wasn't HEARD at the parish level and only the Metropolitan and the local Bishop were commemorated.
In fact, to come into union with Rome simply meant to come into union with the Metropolitan who was in union with Rome.
Later, the Pope was commemorated twice, at the Great Entrance and after the Eucharistic Canon.
And still later, the Ruthenian Churches (Ukrainian, Belarusyan, Carpatho-Rusyn) introduced the commemoration of the Pope during the Ektenias.
One could see this as a gradual Latinization (although I don't really see how since we commemorate the Pope more times than the most traditional RC's!).
I think the problem lay in the way the commemorations are set out in the DL.
The local Hierarchs are ALWAYS commemorated throughout the Divine Liturgy. The Moscow Patriarch is always commemorated this way as well.
I think that with union with Rome, our churchmen began to think there was something abnormal about commemorating everyone from the Metropolitan down, but not the Pope - as if he was not an integral part of the EC hierarchy - which he is not, of course.
But then there were a number of historic instances when entire groups of Uniates left the union with Rome and returned to Orthodoxy ie. under Met. Joseph Siemashko who led 3 million EC's to Orthodoxy (and I believe the Orthodox Church established a feastday for that event).
So it was just natural for our Latinophrones to press for the papal commemoration at every ektenia and at the "Many Years" singing at the end of the DL.
I personally much prefer the way the Melkites do it - they commemorate the Pope of Rome at the parish level, but just once, as I understand.
We Ukrainian Catholics are so concerned about resembling the Latin Catholics that we've even taken, as a quite liturgical model, the Novus Ordo which our liturgists at Rome have imagined is a "shortened" version of the Mass.
So that is why our Latinophrone liturgists have likewise introduced "shortening" into our DL by officially dropping the Second Antiphon (so why is the second we use called the "Third Antiphon?") and also dropped the Ektenia for the Catechumens etc.
The spirit doesn't "rise" for such "shortening!"
But the shortening also makes more evident the terrible redundancy of a four-fold papal commemoration . . .
It seems to demonstrate a terrible insecurity on our part, as if we are afraid that our people will become "infected with schism" and become so "invincibly ignorant" that they will follow their ancestors and go "over to Orthodox schism."
I heard one of our bishops use those words to me once . . . He also cautioned me about my icon of the "Pillars of Orthodoxy" - "you can keep it for art's sake, Alex, but remember those people were promoters of disunity . . ."
As for the Moscow Patriarch - I don't really see anything wrong with him, save for the UGCC thingy.
He is doing more than most Patriarchs in the past to build up the Russian Church by canonizing Saints, establishing parishes throughout Russia and strengthening the presence of the Orthodox Church in Russia.
He is right to criticize Rome for being disrespectful toward Orthodoxy in Russia - my in-laws saw for themselves when they were in Russia how 'respectful' RC proselytism is over there. I've also received pamphlets published by GC nuns that try to convert Ukrainian Orthodox students in religiously-neutral Ukrainian student organizations!
That is NOT right!!
And what I admire most about the Moscow Patriarch is how he is trying to reunite the separated parts of the Russian Church into one whole - the ROCOR and the Old Believers especially.
(I would recommend to him that he include the names of the Old Believer Saints and Martyrs in the General Russian Orthodox Calendar as a goodwill gesture
).
In fact, I wish the Ukrainian Orthodox had a similar Kyivan Patriarchate (canonical) with a strong Patriarchal leader like that.
25% of Ukrainian Orthodox today identify with Orthodoxy but say they belong to NO Orthodox jurisdiction.
They want to belong to a "Ukrainian Orthodox" jurisdiction that is canonical etc. And they don't see the current "Ukrainian Orthodox Church" the branch plant of the Moscow Patriarchate as that.
That is the real tragedy.
Moscow should let go or it should do the best thing it could - help establish a canonical UOC Patriarchate based in Kyiv and then let go of it completely.
If not, the Ukrainian Orthodox will do it themselves, uncanonically at first, but then canonically in the final analysis.
The EP can be persuaded in this respect, especially if the UOC-KP would be willing to be in direct communion with it etc.
This is already happening, with the Ukrainian government's passive cooperation.
The Russian government is also close to the MP as well (or so I've been told!
.
Again, to call the Ukrainian Orthodox "nationalistic" is . . . true.
So what? What are the Russian Orthodox if not chauvinistically nationalist?
Or is it that only imperial Churches of the past may exercise this as their sole prerogative?
Alex
