www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Archbishop of Mogliev

Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz, of the newly established Catholic Archdiocese of the Mother of God in Moscow, responded to Russian Orthodox criticism with a statement that included the following:

"the See (centre) of the Archdiocese of Mogliev was the capital of the Russian Empire, St Petersburg, while the diocese of Tiraspol had Sarataov as its See. What is more in 1923 the diocese of Vladivostok was established. The Archbishop of Mogliev was called Metropolitan of all Catholic Churches in the Russian Empire"


Question:
Can any of you historians tell me what years we are talking about for the time when Mogliev was the capital of the Russian Empire and when the Archbishop was called Metropolitan of all Catholic Churches in the Russian Empire?

A returning lapsed lurker.

Lapse,

I think the point trying to be made was the gentleman who held the title "Archbishop of Mogliev" (a city in the Russian Empire) was resident in the Russian capital of St. Petersburg.

K.

Latin Lurker,

The Archbishop was refering to the fact that while the title of the See was Mohilev, the bishop resided in and presided from St. Petersburg, capital of the empire at that time.

The erection of Mohilev can be considered the foundation of the Catholic Hierarchy in the Russian Empire. The following is a basic timeline. Modern location is given in parenthesis.

The Diocese of Mohilev (Belarus) was created by Catherine the Great in 1772. This action was sanctioned by the Pope soon after. Mohilev was raised to a Archdiocese in 1783 and raised to a Metropolitan Archdiocese in 1798. In the same year the Dioceses of Lutsk-Zhytomir (Ukraine), Kamyanets (Ukraine), Minsk (Belarus), Samogitia (Lithuania), Vilna (Lithuania), and Minsk for Byzantine-Ruthenians were erected. In 1848 the Diocese of Tiraspol (Russia) was erected. The Czar suppressed Minsk for Byzantines in the late 1800's. In 1866 Kamyanets was merged with Lutsk-Zhytomir and Minsk was merged with Mohilev. In 1917 an Apostolic Exarchate was erected for Byzantine-Russians. In 1981 Lutsk-Zhytomir and Kamyanets were seperated. In 1921 the Apostolic Vicarate of Siberia was erected. In 1923 the Dioceses of Vladivostok (Siberian Russia) and Pinsk (Belarus) were erected and Lutsk and Zhytomir seperated.

In 1926 a slew of Apostolic Administrations were erected without the suppressed of the previous diocese they were supplanting. This situation continued until the downfall of Communism and the Catholic Hierarchy was reestablished in the former countries of the Soviet Union. So the Moscow Patriarchate shouldn't really be complaining because Catholic diocese were there for about three hundred years and were never formally suppressed, only oppressed and forced underground by the Communist government.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

[ 02-17-2002: Message edited by: Lance ]

Thank you both, Kurt and Lance.

We have a lay Catholic and Orthodox discussion group meeting tonight and I needed some quick homework. I expect opinions will go to a) gratuitous and unnecessary move on the part of Rome or b) sheep are entitled to have a shepherd on the job.

Pax Christi

Dear Latin Lurker,

We are all grateful to "Lance a lot" for his knowledge and theological wisdom!

The Church of Belarus recently glorified as a saint the Orthodox Archbishop of Mohiliv, the Ukrainian Yuri Konissky who carried on a correspondence with Bishop Boretsky of his time.

Konissky was a very scholarly hierarch who was in strong support of Orthodoxy but had the time to listen to what the Eastern Catholics had to say as well.

A number of Kyivan Orthodox bishops, including Metropolitan Stepan Yavorsky, tended to borrow from Latin perspectives at this time in order to do battle with Protestantism.

Rome looked upon these bishops favourably as potential allies. The Tsaritsa Catherine, no friend of Orthodoxy, was only too "helpful" to Rome in this regard as she really did wanted to weaken the Russian Orthodox Church.

It is unfortunate, I believe, that the current Roman authorities would point to these historical situations that exploited the dire straights in which Orthodoxy in Eastern Europe was formerly in to promote the Unia and Roman CAtholicism.

Let us also remember that, at the time our ancestors signed the Unia, many entertained the hope that the Eastern Catholics would eventually become "full-fledged" Catholics i.e. Roman Catholics.

Discrimination against Eastern Catholics in both the Russian and Polish empires continued unabated. As Fr. Bohdan Lypsky mentioned in his sermons (recorded in "The Spirituality of our Rite"), the Eastern Catholic Metropolitan of Kyiv followed the last Latin Catholic bishop in any "ecumenical" Church procession and other indications that demonstrate such discrimination and branding of Eastern Catholics as "second-class" Catholics.

The fact that Catholics of whatever stripe or rite were "there" and under the protection of the later only formally Orthodox (but really Lutheran and anti-Orthodox) Tsars is both in bad taste and shows a great insensitivity to the Orthodox position.

Alex

Alex,

My dear friend, you betray your monarchist beliefs!

The Latin bishops had higher status in the procession not due to superior ecclesiastical status but because the Greek bishops were never given their promised membership in the Polish Senate. Because the Latin bishops were members of the King's Senate, (therefore nobility) they had higher ranking.

The Greek bishops should have had their civil status as promised by the King, but the Church simply followed the same rules she used then and today.

Nowadays, it is common (though a personal decision) for clerics with noble titles to voluntarily waive their "upgrade" due to that title. Our beloved Metropolitan Count Sheptevisky was a rare bird when he frequently did so in his lifetime.

I believe the Wittlesbachs, who have some clerical members, are known for still insisting on their rights in processions due to their hereditary titles.

K.

Alex,

In Church processions doesn't the most senior clergy come last? At least that is how we do it in our Metropolia. The Metropolitan is always last.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Dear Lance,

Is Mogliev in modern Russia or Belarus? Is that why the Russian Hierarchy was not restored with this title?

Elias

it is now in the Republic of Belarus. it's Archbishop currently has juridiction over the Latin rite faithful in that country.

K.

Dear Lance,

According to Fr. Lypsky (+memory eternal!) the Latin hierarchy proceeded with the Cardinals et al. first. He often referred to this when discussing discrimination against Eastern Catholics.

Kurt's point is well taken. However, religious processions reflected church hierarchies in the first instance and visiting prelates, not members of any Senate, if above the RC prelates, were, in fact, given a place of honour befitting their rank.

The Eastern Catholics were not. The feelings about them, well documented by historians and writings in their time, were that they were somehow not "fully Catholic" but only "on the way to" becoming fully Catholic aka Roman Catholic.

Alex

I am sure some of you saw the memorial mass in NYC at St. Patrick's?

Who was the last man with the white beard in and out of the church during the procession?

Sinner,
Ality

Does anyone think that, perhaps someday, we will see the Holy Father appoint a successor to Vladika Andrei Katkoff, M.I.C. as "Bishop of the Russian Catholic Church"?
Silouan