www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall UAOC-Sobornopravna

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

If what you've just posted is NOT true, then a lot of books and articles I've seen need to have their authors contacted and definite revisions to what they have always assumed need to be made!

Alex

The All-Merciful Lord bless you Alex -
s prazdnikom!

Although I don't like the microbeards and am a russophile (or should it be rus'ophile ) I have been very impressed by Metropolitan Michael and the loving openess, yet traditional Orthodox of the sobornopravnists. Having heard of the moves Bukovinan and Gallician Old Believers towards the aftokephalna in the 1920's and 1930's (thankyou Diak!) I contacted Vladyka Michael and was greeted with great love and openess. I was very impressed with the depth of his answers.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner

Dear Father Mark:

It wasn't my intention to attack the UAOC, but this site does say the fraternity is part of the UAOC-Sobornopravna. Maybe I'm just a victim of misinformation from the vagantes, who masquerade as one Church but they aren't that church. It's some kind of confusing, but the site has a link that takes you to the page of the Spobornopravna Church which venerates Met. Andrew of Lviv and which was mentioned before.

Father Mark, from whatI know, I am not sure which of the UOAC's is but the UOAC was uncanonical and some of the orders were doubtful. It is my understanding that as no Bishops wanted to join them, they consacrated one with the hands of a dead Bishop and then the autocephalists called for the creation of a separate Church with married Bishops, liturgy in Ukrainian, etc. Is this episode true, do you have inforrmation about this?

Please, please understand, no offense is taken. It is good that we discuss these things and learn.

The first UOAC is distinct from the second, as Alex I think once pointed out. As I understand it, you are very right in what you say about the first UAOC, but the refoundation(?) of the aftokefalna in the 1940's was on sound footing, with the help of Metropolitan Dionisii of Warsaw.

I am told that the Western European Metropolia, or whatever they call themselves, have no link to the UAOC sobornopravna anymore - whatever they claim. I hope that a statement will be made soon, in order to clarify the situation. What I do know, is that many European clergy have been misinformed and simply NOT informed about what has happened with the sobornopravna. Metropolitan Michael/Mikhailo has received one of my closest friends who refused to acknowledge the European schism, and having received some of the Spanish clergy is taking apostolic responsibility for all who remain faithful to Holy Orthodoxy and the Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church sobornopravna.

The Western European Metropolia is a schism and the whole episode is so sad. I see that the 'Metropolitan Kallistos' has been consecrating bishops left, right and centre in order to create his own synod. Presumably, on of his initial co-consecrators was a Syriac bishop whom he received. Since this bishop was a monophysite and NOT ORTHODOX, I would be very interested to know how he was received. I do not know, but knowing the attitude of this Kallistos, I would not be surprised if the method was uncanonical. This is not tittle-tattle, but a serious question, as it has implications on the consecrations that they have done together.

The UAOC sobornopravna desperately needs to set everyone straight on what has happened here, as it causes confusion and great spiritual harm. I can neither understand or believe the lack of response to this awful affair.

As for the veneration of Metropolitan Andrij, this was covered on another thread a couple of weeks ago. It's very interesting and well worth reading.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, mok and sinner.

Dear Snoopers,

The first UAOC in 1921 did indeed consecrate their Metropolitan and another bishop involving thirty priests. These two then consecrated a hierarchy of bishops, separate from Moscow et al.

Most of all these were killed by the Bolsheviks.

There is more than one Ukie Orthodox Church that calls itself the "UAOC." And a number have glorified their Metropolitan, Basil Lypkivsky and also Met. Michael Borestky, as saints and Hieromartyrs.

(Even the Ukrainian Catholic Patriarch Josef Slipyj acknowledged the validity of this UAOC, at least in private by way of letter, and always referred to Lypkivsky as "that great Metropolitan and Martyr.")

Many Ukie Catholics I know think very sympathetically of Basil Lypkivsky in terms of a great hero and defender of his Ukrainian church and people etc.

The canonical aspect is an issue, to be sure.

The UAOC that you mention does NOT publicly venerate Met. Andrew Sheptytsky as a saint - they ONLY concur that he should be glorified a saint by the "universal church."

Even the Moscow Patriarchate in Western Ukraine, following the "synod" of 1946 (by the way, do you believe that "synod" was a valid, canonical one? ) allowed for public panakhydas for Met. Andrew Sheptytsky up until 1954.

At the end of that "synod," the "Holy Hieromartyr" Gabriel Kostelnyk read a panegyric in honour of Met. Andrew Sheptytsky saying that he laid the foundations for a 'return to Orthodoxy' in western Ukraine.

That could all be very true - I don't know and I don't want to argue about it (has someone been going around saying this recently?).

So, even the Moscow Patriarchate allowed for the possibility of a local tribute to this Catholic Metropolitan, probably to let the "transition" to Orthodoxy occur more smoothly.

The UAOC in Ukraine is located primarily in western Ukraine where the memory of Met. Andrew is highly venerated, even among the Orthodox.

And he is highly venerated here among most Ukies.

So being supportive of his cause is simply good politics for starters!

And, the New Skete in the OCA in the USA continues to venerate St Francis of Assisi and St Clare - they continue to print icons of them both.

Many Russian Orthodox emigres to France honoured Our Lady of Lourdes (as Ware notes), St Therese of Lisieux and Our Lady of La Sallette.

Fr. John Meyenorff once wrote to me to say that the private veneration of those who were not formally Orthodox is NOT condemned by Orthodoxy.

So you really went off on the deep end there, Amigo!

Alex

Dear Alex,

Is the second aftokfalna really distinct from the first. I would hope so!!!

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

Yes, indeed!

There is no question but that the second UAOC formation discarded the idea that 12 priests or more can consecrate a bishop.

But I have read of at least two instances in Eastern Church history where this occurred - in Alexandria and in Persia (?).

The Kyivan Canons of the first UAOC formation decreed that bishops could be consecrated from among married clergy, that Ukrainian only was to be used in the services, as opposed to the "Russified Slavonic," that Ukraine as "Our God-protected and God-Beloved Mother" was to be commemorated at the Liturgy etc.

What this first UAOC did, canonical or not, was to begin the movement for a truly Ukrainianized Orthodox Church for the Ukrainian people.

Although the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine calls itself "Ukrainian Orthodox," there is very little that is "Ukrainian" about it.

(They don't even want to learn Ukrainian - and if I had to then . . . ).

But even the now canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada here does still venerate the memory of Basil Lypkivsky.

This situation with the first UAOC does, in some ways, resemble the crisis the Old Believers faced.

It is just that the Old Believers opted to remain priestless, if being "priestly" meant to accept Nikonian orders.

How do these compare, Father, - to remain without priests and sacraments, or to try the kind of experiment, that seemed to have historical precedent, that the first UAOC did?

Alex

Dear Alex, we could cite the course taken by those who went beyond the Starayavera and became khlysty with lay leadership and lay administration of so-called 'sacraments'.

Actually, there were Old Believers who considered 'the corpse option' for 'consecration', but came to their senses before doing anything stupid!

Were there not hierarchs who thought the Ukrainianisation of the Church desirable before the revolution (Theophan of Poltava?)?

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk andf sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

I'm not trying to defend the first formation of the UAOC in every respect and I have no wish whatever, please believe me, to cast aspersions of any kind on any aspect of the Old Believers, including the bezpopovtsy.

This is a question that has always intrigued me.

The Ukrainianization of the Church in Ukraine was indeed defended by Saint Theophane the New Recluse (I believe the ROCOR has glorified him a saint) and others.

But nothing was really done and it was not in the interest of the Russian episcopal rulers of the Church in Ukraine to follow this course.

St Basil Lypkivsky did, in fact, travel to other Orthodox Patriarchates in the hopes of obtaining episcopal consecration - but no one would touch the issue for fear of Moscow.

He exhausted every avenue, save going to Rome, in this respect.

And the Ukrainianization issue was an important one. It had actually less to do with assimilation issues, but with the issue of growing alienation from Orthodoxy among Ukrainians as a result of a growing disaffection with the foreign spiritual culture of Russian Orthodoxy.

This occurred simultaneously with the movements of national consciousness-raising etc. that developed among many nations that were part of crumbling empires at the time.

Alex

Alex your words are gentle and peaceful and are taken as such!

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, unworthy monk.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

Well, I'm working on it!

And conversing with you is like a rejuvenating breeze of fair British weather!

(You don't want to know what kind of weather we're having over here in the far-flung reaches of your former empire! ).

Alex

Actually I thought that the Western Metropolia or whatever is called was closer to Patriarch Filaret's Church than to the other UOAC. The fact that many groups call themselves UOAC causes the confusion.

I am not opposed to the veneration of Catholic saints at all, I have stamps of some saints in my house, saints who are highly venerated here. I would say that St Francis is a saint of the universal Church too, but what I mean is that the Fraternity could indeed cause a confusion among Orthodox in latin American countries, were the differences between Orthodox and Catholics are not so clear for many.

Regarding the synods of 1948 and the incorporation of Greek Catholics to Orthodox Churches it is certainly deplorable, because those unions were imposed with terror and violence, and the fact that those Bishops doidn't have a choice to decide what they wanted to do would make that synod uncanonical (but both Romanian and Russian Churches atill say the decree it's still in force, wdon't they)

hello everyone.
I have a source whom I will not name who is very inciteful on this "sobornoparavna" church. "metropolitan" Stefan is on who left the Kyiv Patriarchate because he was not chosen to be a bishop by PAt. Filaret, could be said to be a self proclaimed bishop. Alexis was given a "bribe" in order to concecrate 'Met' Stephan.

2nd "met" MOISEI is one who comes from a worse situation. He was a UOC USA priest before the union w/ Constantinople. HE then joined to the Kyiv Patriarchate and was tonsured a monk.
He started to claim that he was given a "message from God" and God told him that he (then father Kulik) will be the future Patriarch of Kyiv and Moscow and also the Pope in Rome at the same time. PAT. FILARET suspended him and fr Oleh Kulik came to the US. He was accepted by the "soboronopravna" church and then concecrated a bishop then metropolitan.

Overall this church is very strange and their claimed lineage from the old Sobornapravna church is in question. The true Sobornopravna church under Met. Ojijchuk converted to the Kyiv Patriarchate when it was established.

BE CAREFULL WHeN DEALING WITH THIS CHURCH. IT IS "Fishy". I HEARD MANY STRANGE STORIES ABOUT THEM ALSO.

Z BOHOM
UKIPATR

Dear Ukipatr,

In essence, the sad divisions among the Ukie Orthodox and Catholics will really only come to an end with their unification in one Kyivan Patriarchate.

But Ukie Orthodox and Catholics are today closer to each other than they ever have been in history, canonicity et al. notwithstanding.

And I think they realize that their internal divisions are the product of external, foreign church/state politics (as other Eastern communities also believe about their own internal divisions).

Also, I made a mistake in naming "Michael" Boretsky - he was "Nicholas" Boretsky and a direct relation to our Eastern Canadian Eparch Emeritus, Bishop Isidore.

Met. Nicholas Boretsky actually discarded the Kyivan Canons and refused to admit married men to the episcopate in his church while beginning the process of normalizing the canonical status of the UAOC of 1921.

Arrested by the Soviets, he was tortured to death, having lost his mind in Soviet prisons.

When he was asked to sign a document stating there was no religious persecution in Russia, St Nicholas Boretsky simply said, "If there were no religious persecution, I would not be in prison."

Alex

Dear Snoopers,

Is that what you think?

Then, in response to your post, I just wanted to leave you with these thoughts.

You are a responsible Orthodox Christian with a well-balanced historical understanding of and sensitivity to many issues.

Alex