www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News UOC/KP Patriarch Filaret visits UGCC Parish in US

Coalesco,

Since you don't seem to have a private mailbox, I just wanted to thank you for your support. As you know, I'm not trying to offend anyone here, just navigate my way through the dirty waters of this rather ugly debate.

Yeah, Diak, I do. The UGCC was one of the largest(or perhaps the largest?) banned religious group in the world from 1946 (when the entire Church was liquidated and its clergy and faithful were forced under the Communist-headed Russian Orthodox Church based in Moscow) to 1989, the year the Communist Regime of the USSR fell. In 1946 a "fake Sobor", as you call it, pronounced that the UGCC was thereby liquidated and was henceforth part of the ROC. The UGCC met much the same fate in Poland. Monasteries and convents were shut down. Brave Ukrainian Catholics who refused to forego their ecclesial and national identity were imprisoned or worse.

Because the Holy Father is an Eastern European deeply opposed to the evils of communism and experienced it first-hand? Because he is half-Ukrainian and feels a linkage to the Ukrainian Catholcis who died for their faith under the satanic regime? To assure present-day Ukrainian Catholics that loyalty to the Faith will not be forgotten?

I guess I could reply with the fact that I did not expect sympathy from you, but neither did I expect such childish baiting from a Ukrainian Catholic of your stature.

Logos Teen

Hmmm... Anyone ever heard of the Greeks? 'To be Greek is is to be Orthodox - to be Orthodox is to be Greek.' I admit, only one 'confession', but a fine example of nationalism hijacking a Church. A result of the Turkokratia, from which the Church has yet to fully recover. And Ukrainians are to be anathemised for wanting to reclaim what is rightfully theirs? Are we to believe that the MP's view of Ukraine is not tinged by Russian nationalism and politics, just religious purity and righteousness? Give me a break. Next you'll try to sell me a bridge in Brooklyn.

There was a pub I used to visit. After a while I decided I didn't like the clientele, so I stopped going. If Ukrainians are such horrible, un-Christian nationalist and you find them offensive, then avoid places where they congregate, such as ByzCath. I highly doubt someone is pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to visit this site.

I have to say that this thread has spoiled the wonderful mood I was in, having just returned from a weekend at a ROCOR monastery that was being visited by the Kursk Root Icon. Curiously enough, even after they learned which Church we belonged to, they didn't kick us out - they even asked that we come and visit any time we wanted to. BTW, other than the monks only two people attended all of today's services, starting with Matins at 07:30 - and both of us are Greco-Catholic.

Andrij

Diak:

[OK, since we are throwing out articles, here we go. In the first article Alexei can't even admit he opposed the reinstating of the Communist national anthem instead of a religious one.]

What's the big deal? The melody would be the same BUT THE WORDS WOULD BE DIFFERENT. So you are in error in claiming it would be the communist national anthem. It would not. It would be a new reworded anthem. Alexi is supposed to be a religious leader not a government leader.

It's not unlike the fact we sing 'My country tis of thee' while the English sing 'God save our noble Queen' to the same melody.

[Yakunin was briefly given access to a section of the KGB archives which showed that the top hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate were agents of the KGB. The most important KGB agent was the Patriarch, Alexei II, himself."]

Denisenko must have also been amongst them. He obviously, contrary to what you claim, must have had even more power and authority under communism than Alexi otherwise he wouldn't have been chosen OVER ALEXI to be locum tenents [acting patriarch] after the death of Patriarch Pimen. Another example where you don't use either logic or common sense in your haste to criticize.

Every person with any influence had a code name in the KGB files including the Pope of Rome and the President of the U.S.

When the the subject of automony came up for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, it was the Ukrainian bishops who told the MP that if it meant automony under Filaret they would refuse it. It's one of the reasons he was relieved of his duties -

From a study done by Professor Thomas Mether Phd in Theology regarding Filaret and the Ukrainian Church -

5. The Moscow Patriarchate granted the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church autonomy in 1991
in accordance with the 1917-18 Sobor as a first step towards autocephaly (but without being a patriarchate).� However, Metropolitan Filaret's irregular sexual habits (as well as his involvement in government corruption and mafia like schemes of former KGB businessmen associated with President Leonid Kravchuk) so enraged the Ukrainian bishops that most sent letters to Moscow protesting Filaret's behavior in Kiev and said they would remain under Moscow
until he was retired.

6. In May 1992, the Moscow Patriarchate holds an episcopal council (including Ukainian Bishops) to redress the situation and discuss autocephaly. All but two
bishops voted against autocephaly unless Filaret was removed. To avoid scandal, Filaret agreed to a cover-up, swore on the cross and Bible at the council that he would retire upon his return to Kiev and in exchange he would return to Kiev as Metropolitan and retire without further scandal. Then the already granted autonomy of the Ukrainian church would develop into a full autocephaly under Vladimir Sabodan, Filaret's planned replacement.

7. Upon his return to Kiev, Filaret rejected what he agreed to on "cross and Bible." He immediately proceeded to go away from Moscow with the support of his close friend, President Kravchuk, as well as that of the nationalist Rukh movement to start an autocephalous church.

8. In response, a council of bishops defrocked
Filaret and a council of all Ukrainian bishops
elected Vladimir Sabodan as Metropolitan
of the Ukrainian church under Moscow (with plans to proceed towards autocephaly as already sketched out).

[I pray for intercession of her martyrs regularly. I have heard no such admission from Bob about the martyrdom of Ukrainian Catholics or Orthodox. He might think we made that all up to make the MP look bad.]

I pray for all the martyrs that suffered under a POLITICAL REGIME called communisim be they RC, OC, or UGC in Russia as well as Ukraine and elsewhere. Including the newly consecrated Ukrainian Orthodox Martyrs listed on the Ukrainian orthodox site Alex is part of.

You people always make it sound like the only ones that suffered under communism were the Ukrainians. The Russians also suffered. Longer and with heavier losses -

Religious News Service on November 27,1995.� These statistics are taken right from the KGB files -

MOSCOW [RNS} - Some 200,000 clergy, many crucified, scalped, and otherwise
tortured, were killed during the communist era in the former Soviet Union, a
Russian commission reported here on November 27, 1995.� Another 500,000
believers were persecuted and 40,000 churches were destroyed between 1922 and
1980, the report said.

"Clergymen were crucified on churches' Holy Gates, shot scalped, and
strangled.," said Alexander Yakovlev, head of the Commission for the
Rehabilitation of the Victims of Political Repression which prepared the
report for Russian president Boris Yeltsin.� "I was especially schocked by
accounts of priests turned into columns of ice in winter, "Yakovlev
continued, adding that the commission unearthed documets showing that as
early as 1918, Vladimr Lenin had odered a campagn of "merciless terror
against priests."


[Filaret, while he may also have participated in the Soviet government by complicity, although apparently in a much minor way compared to Alexei according to Father Gleb Yakunin, has renounced his past and is defending his church and people.]

If Filaret compllicity was so minor as compared to Alexi, can you explain why Filaret became Locum Tenets (acting Patriarch) after the death of Patrairch Pimen rather than Alexi? He couldn't have played such a minor role with the government if he was chosen over Alexi and the rest of the bishops of the ROC.

Can you tell me where I can find info on Filaret renouncing his past?

[Bob, I never realized you had the "gift" of reading and judging souls...]

I don't. But isn't that what you and others are doing regarding Alexi and others?

[Speaking of questions, you have never answered the one why Alexei II has never publically renounced Communism? I hope it is because he is just weak and not an apostate or heretic.

Can you show me where Denisenko or any other Ukrainian Greek Catholic or Orthodox has? or any UGC has renounced the part thaye played in the Nazi SS during WWII?

[Slander? Is Communism not opposed to Christianity? Was Alexei never a member of the Party or KGB? Has Alexei ever publically renounced Communism or his past associations with the Party? ]

Every clergyman was associated with the party. And that includes the Ukrainian clergy as well. It was something that was required to become a clergyman.

If you want to get down and dirty I can post pictures of Ukrainian Catholic clergy dressed in Nazi SS uniforms vesting for an outdoor Liturgy. But what's the point? All the clergy, be they Orthodox Catholic, Roman Catholic, or Greek Catholic did what they had to, to preserve the Church. Some times it meant chosing what they thought was the lessor of two evils like the UGC in SS uniforms. Some times it meant complicity on one issue to protect a much more important issue.

What you and others like you don't understand or can't comprehend because you are so brain washed with hatred is that it didn't matter what the ROC did in 1946. The UGC was going to be liquidated regardless. Stalin wanted one church to control rather than two. The choice the ROC made was the only logical choice to be made. It provided the Sacraments to the UGC faithful, it educated their priests, while it saved itself from increased persecution that had been already going on almost 30 by 1946.

You still have not given me an answer to my question on how and why the UGC would have been better off than it was after the fall of communism if the ROC had turned their backs on it in 1946.

[It is highly presumptuous and inaccurate to imply that all of our educated priests are so strictly because of MP training. I'll have to tell Archimandrite Robert Taft, Father Andrij Chirovsky or Father Peter Galadza that one.]

I don't remember using the word 'all'. but, according to your own statistics at least 600 of them were educated in Russian Orthodox seminaries paid for by Russian Orthodox money.

OrthoMan

Bob, it is very simple. ALso I have discovered that you don't read posts. See mine above regarding the suffering of the Russian Church: Contrast this with your little snip: "You people?" Now who is really making ethnic waves here, Bob? Who is blinded with hatred? And with the suffering of Ukrainains and others under the Russian Tsars, I don't agree with your argument of suffering "longer". Disagreeing, not denying there was suffering.

To answer your questions, the UGCC is better off because it is free now. If it was part of the MP it would be under the leadership of a Patriarch who has not renounced the godless system that placed him in power and supported him and oppressed his church and people.

We are in union with Rome, and although your narrow mind cannot grasp this, this is where we want to be.

Your comments on the UGCC's relations with the SS are again predictable. You may not have heard Kurt Levin's assessment of Metropolitan Sheptytsky's efforts to hide Jews while under Nazi control: Don't hear any such statements about Alexei or his predecessors related from the Jews. OK, that substantially addresses your SS claims.

Now, back to questions. Again, I repeat mine which you continue to sidestep. This is about faith, not politics. If Alexei has not renounced communism, which he hasn't, that makes him at least complicit with heresy.

It comes down to faith, to the MP Alexei II and his failure to renounce the heresy of communism, which he materially participated in, and has nothing to do with the faithful or the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church who resisted the godless over the years.

Alexei II has an obligation to his church and people to defend Orthodoxy which he seems hesitant to do by renouncing the heretical system that put him in power and of which he was a part.

I never denied Filaret may have had a checkered past, in fact I aknowedged that. I do know that had Father Gleb Yakunin identified Filaret to have been as a "big wheel" like Alexei he would have been specifically mentioned. He wasn't, Alexei was.

Again, this from a priest of the MP who was allowed access to the KGB archives. Obviously Fr. Gleb would have had nothing to hide regarding Filaret since he was not even subject to his jurisdiction.

To be specific, the Filaret Fr. Gleb Yakunin identified in the KGB archives was Filaret of Minsk ("Ostrovski"), not Filaret Denysenko later to be Patriarch Filaret. The other bishops, by the way, were Juvenalij of Krutitsy ("Adament"); and Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk ("Mikhailov") the current director of External Affairs for the MP.

As a Christian I can question his lack of speaking out against heresy. I did not make a crass judgement like "Ukrainian first, God second" as you said of Alex and your comparison that I have done something like this is puerile. I do not appreciate seeing my friends attacked in this way. I know darn well of Alex's orthodoxy and moral positions with regard to godless communism. Don't know about Alexei, because he won't take a stand.

I am concerned as a Christian because the leader of a large group of Christians will not take a stand against a heretical system that put him in power, of which he belonged, and which he still may belong as far as I can tell.

You want us in the UGCC to join the MP? Well, we have some questions that need answered before we can process the data necessary to make that decision. While Patriarch Filaret may have a checkered past, as I acknowledged, he does not have current ties to a communist past that Alexei continues to maintain and foster. Being denounced by Alexei II itself is documentation enough of Filaret's break of relations with the Soviet-era MP hierarchy still in place.

You have still not acknowledged the documented past of Alexei nor substantially answered any of my previous questions regarding Alexei's stand on communism.

Again, if I can see some concrete evidence that Alexei II has had an official renunciation of his communist past/present, that would be something. But in reality he can't even stand up to opposing the reinstating of a Soviet anthem that he first was alleged to have opposed and then even denied opposing.

Also Filaret doesn't seem to have to resort to physical violence as the MP did to him in 1999: http://www.rferl.org/newsline/1999/05/030599.asp Good ol' Soviet era tactics - if you don't agree with someone, and you are bigger, beat them up.

Teen, I apologize if my response was testy. "Childish" I think is a bit far considering the source. I did not intend to "bait" you into anything.

Please review your previous statements. A comment like yours makes the insinuation that the UGCC would not be concerned with heterodoxy, heresy and schism in the name of Ukrainian politics. This did cause me to react with a certain amount of dismay in your response from another Catholic. I ask that you review your comments first and think through what they insinuate.

Any Ukrainian Catholic could take your comment above and assume just for Ukrainian political reasons we might run to heterodoxy, heresy or schism. If you have the knowledge of the martyr UGCC church under the Soviets as you claim, and the price that was paid for fidelity to the Catholic Church, I would hope you would be more careful in your comments.

You have to realize what the last century has been for Ukrainians in general and Ukrainian Catholics in particular in order to fully understand the sensitivity and passion that this topic unfortunately brings up. Again, if I was off-key and terse, I apologize.

But when someone who lurks for months and attacks with these hit-and run tactics every now and then with tirages about how a significant part of the Catholic Church would have been better off liquidated under the MP, you'll have to excuse some emotion on my part and I ask all humbly for forgiveness for my predisposition to passion on this subject.

Diak writes:

[To answer your questions, the UGCC is better off because it is free now. If it was part of the MP it would be under the leadership of a Patriarch who has not renounced the godless system that placed him in power and supported him and oppressed his church and people. ]

In reply may I quote His Holiness from a 1995 issue of 'Alive In Christ' which also happens to be my diocesan quarterly -

This is in regards to Patriarch Alexi announcing the plans of rebuilding 'Christ The Saviour Cathedral' as an atonement for the Russian people turning away from God. The Patriarch states (at the laying of the cornerstone) -

"Having rebelled against God, condemned the sacred memory
of our ancestors, and without the least scruples of conscience
destroyed the labors of the best sons and daughters of our people,
we have covered Russian history with the stain of terrible iniquity.
This stain weighs on our conscience,
and casts a pall on the spiritual life of our society." --Patriarch Aleksy II of Moscow

From the mayor of Moscow at the placing of the cornerstone -

The rebuilding of the church was the centerpiece of a huge renovation scheme in the Russian capital pursued by its mayor, Yuri Luzhkov. During a ceremony to lay the cathedral's cornerstone Luzhkov said "Let the reconstruction of the main cathedral stand as symbolic proof of hundreds of destroyed churches and millions of lost lives".

That is the main reason the Cathedral was rebuilt. It's also the reason that while the original Cathedral built in 1812 took 44 years. The rebuilding from start to finish took little less than 5 years. It was worked on 24 hours a day, seven days a week during that entire time period.

Patrairch Alexi also got down on his knees at the first 'Forgivness Vespers' after his enthronement at the beginning of Great Lent and asked forgiveness for sins committed during the 'Soviet period'.

Now, please give me any atonement speeches made by the self proclaimed uncanonical Patriarch Filaret or any other Ukrainian bishops Orthodox Catholic or Greek Catholic or either the complicity with the nazi's or the communists.

The UGCC is free now? If the ROC had refused Stalins request it would have had to be recreated from ashes. Instead it was recreated from existing parishes sheparded by Orthodox educated priests and maintained by Orthodox money for almost 50 years.

If your UGCC is so free how come you can't address your chief Hierach as Patriarch within ear shot of the Pope? Remember one thing Diak when the MP visits Ukraine not one automonous UOC-MP priest or Hierach is required to bow down before him and kiss his foot, ring, hand or any other part of his anatomy.

If you are so free and happy now under Papal jurisdiction, can I assume you have no objections if I refer to you as a 'Papal Catholic' to distinguish your catholicity from my own?

Have you ever taken the time to read the Canons of the Eastern Church to see exactly how free you are being 'In Communion With' [and therefore, under the authority] of Rome?

As the UGCC was recreating itself where were all the priests going to come from to take over the parishes if the church had been destroyed in 1946 and there were no seminaries in existence to train future priests? That's is the question you keep side stepping.

And, since you criticize the what the ROC did, please give me a scenario on what you think they should have done. And how it would have been advantageous to the UGC today.

OrthoMan

Hey YOBKO-

If you are going to spread hate and slander, do not take it here because yo obviously have an unpriodctive, negative, anti-Ukrainian agenda. You have attacked my faith and people (especially Alex).

If you have any respect, you'd not bring your hate to this Forum.

-uc

"If your UGCC is so free how come you can't address your chief Hierach as Patriarch within ear shot of the Pope? Remember one thing Diak when the MP visits Ukraine not one automonous UOC-MP priest or Hierach is required to bow down before him and kiss his foot, ring, hand or any other part of his anatomy."
A. I suggest listening to the video-recordings of the Divine Liturgy in the presence of Pope John Paul II during the Papal visit to Ukraine in 2001. Hierarchs, priests, deacons and faithful can be heard to style Patriarch Lubomyr with that title.
B. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate is NOT autonomous - Moscow has stated this repeatedly.
C. If any Orthodox priest should meet the Patriarch of Moscow - in Ukraine or anywhere else in the world - the priest would most certainly be expected to bow down before the Patriarch, receive the Patriarch's blessing and kiss the Patriarch's hand.
D. The practice of kissing the Pope's foot is no longer in use, to the best of my knowledge.
E. Patriarch Alexei II, Patriarch Lubomyr and Patriarch Filaret all have at least one thing in common - none of them wears a ring.
Incognitus

Dear OrthodoxEast,
Reading your points of view and explanations, I don't know what you are trying prove and you are losing your time. Your ideas will not change the points of view of millions of Ukrainians who will not submit the the MPs and that's a fact. The MPs are losing ground in Ukraine that's another fact. UGCC, UOAC and the UOC-KP are getting along pretty well and the relationships are getting better is just another fact. But because of these facts I understand where you are coming from and I can understand why you are getting all upset.
Lauro

Dear Friends,

I feel most complimented by all the attention my article is getting!

For the record, I have NEVER maintained that Patriarch Filaret is canonical when world Orthodoxy says he is not.

I ONLY wrote that article to respond to a number of questions raised about his connection to his Soviet past.

And, if one would like to read that article again, I maintained that one cannot blame him for his Soviet past without blaming everyone else.

I NEVER said he was a "loyal Ukrainian brother."

Perhaps he is, but I don't know enough about him to say so definitely.

The fact is there were many Orthodox bishops under the Soviet system who were "loyal Ukrainian brothers" despite everything. Nothing in what Patriarch Filaret has said in the past would lead any reasonable person to assume he was against his Ukrainian identity or nation.

He WAS against Ukrainian Orthodox autocephaly AND the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. But so is my friend, Orthoman!

But the former has at least publicly repented of his former views!

As for the nationalism/phyletism business, I think every Orthodox and Catholic Church has its nationalism.

The Russian Church is also very nationalistic. I read Russian and I don't see how anyone can be even mildly acquainted with Russian Orthodoxy without being struck, at once, by its strong Russian, I'll say, chauvinism.

And I don't think that is a bad thing. It is only bad when one Church wants to lord its own identity over another, as occurred with the Russian Orthodox Church and Ukraine and other Orthodox countries.

Are Ukrainian Orthodox and Catholics nationalistic? If they are, that is a good thing since, historically, there were those who were only too quick to "sell out" their identity to either the Russians or the Poles etc.

North American Christians, like Teen Logo, really have NO idea what the historic struggles of Eastern Europe were about and still are.

Ukrainianism does not come first and Christianity second.

But, for us, the two are intertwined with our culture being the medium by which Christianity is assumed by us and in which we live our Christian faith and practice.

That is the same with any other Orthodox or Catholic Church.

The issue of the canonicity of Patriarch Filaret is one that will have to be dealt with in future.

It is one that the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Churches are working toward (let's remember that Moscow continues to deny the canonicity of even those Ukrainian Orthodox jurisdictions in communion with Constantinople).

If, ultimately, Moscow's definition of canonicty means being in subservience to it, then Ukrainian Orthodox simply won't subscribe to that definition.

Orthoman himself once said words to the effect that Moscow should have helped the Ukrainian Orthodox establish their own canonical patriarchate to avoid all this mess.

And he was and still is quite right.

And I would also like to see the Ukrainian Catholic Church reintegrated with a future, canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate based in Kyiv, not Moscow. This Patriarchate could then have relations with others, including Rome and Moscow.

To want one's own independence, autocephaly etc. is not hate-mongering, anti-Russian etc.

It is simply desiring for one's own Church and nation what others have.

Moscow bases its claims to a patriarchate on the Kyivan tradition of St Andrew.

Then why can't Kyiv itself?

Moscow and other Orthodox Patriarchates declared themselves Patriarchates long before world Orthodoxy finally affirmed their right to that status.

Why is it that canonical world Orthodoxy is refusing that same right to Ukrainian Orthodoxy?

While phyletism is wrong and heretical, Christ Himself established a people's national culture as the best primary medium of communicating His Gospel message.

"Go and make disciples of all nations . . ."

That's the way it has always been.

To call Moscow on the act of sin against the Church of Ukraine, the Baltics, Georgia etc. is not to be anti-Russian or against canonicity.

It is to be for justice.

And to be excommunicated for the sake of justice and that of Christ is to be "blessed," according to the words of our Saviour in the Beatitudes.

I'm sorry that OrthodoxEast and Orthoman feel as they do.

I too get involved in issues here that both upset me and sometimes even "force" me to leave etc.

I hope neither of them will.

I know that I have dropped off and won't be coming back for health reasons only

I am, once again, sorry to have upset some here.

I would ask that, in future, what I have said or written on another site not be brought here, as I think our esteemed and venerated Administrator has established that as a rule.

I am also sorry to have to come back to assert some things for the record.

I disappear now here for good. But I hope those upset by what I have said return and continue to enjoy this forum.

God bless you all,

Over and out,

Your sinful friend,

Alex

I love the one-upmanship that exists about persecution. There are always individuals among every persecuted group who try and put their group at the top of the persecution chart. Russians, Ukrainians, Jews, Rom, Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks... "we suffered more than you! :p "

And then there are those who recognize the other sufferers as fellows and companions in enduring the evils of this world...

All holy martyrs, pray to God for us sinners!

Dave

I have committed certain grave breaches of etiquette, and have been corrected by the Administrator.

Tentatively, therefore, I would like to ask OrthoMan and OE a question (and I am truly asking): What is canonicity and who gets to hand it out?

It appears that Orthodoxy is afflicted with the problem of not having someone with recognized authority to give the final word on such matters. The KP and the AUOC don't seem (in my humble opinion) to discern the voice of God in the proclamations of the MP. They are not intimidated by excommunications or anathemas from Moscow. They feel that they can just take their toys and play somewhere else.

And indeed, why shouldn't they? If Muscovite and even Constantinopolitan primacy are (as the Orthodox themselves assert) of human origin rather than divine, then why can't the Ukie Orthodox set up their own autocephalous patriarchate(s)? What IS "canonicity", and how would lack of "canonicity" affect them? Can't the new patriarchate bestow canonicity upon itself?

In the Catholic understanding, the Petrine primacy comes from Christ, not from later convention or from canons. Thus it is difficult for me to understand the structure of the Orthodox hierarchy (and the behavior of the different Orthodox patriarchs who fight with one another over "autocephaly").

I do not seek to stir the pot, I only seek knowledge. If my questions offend anyone, please forgive my ignorance and then answer them .

Admin, let me know if this post breaks the rules.

As a Latin, I am a guest in this household. If any of the sons & daughters are offended by my inquisitiveness into family matters, just let me know!

LatinTrad

Latin Trad, they have no ecclesiastical primacy, although prominent Orthodox theologians like Afansiev, Schmemann and Meynedorf have written about the need for some mutual primacy to minimalize all of the jurisdictional squabbles. I take that back, Alexei II seems to think the primacy of all Orthodoxy resides with him, considering his bullying of Constantinople over Estonia and his sending thugs to beat up Filaret.

Again, ask a group of Orthodox what canonicity means and who is canonical or not canonical, who is in communion with whom, etc. and I guarantee you will be responded to with a plethera of varied answers.

Bob, you can't even for a second dispense with hate mail, can you? I haven't side stepped anything. Most of our priests came from underground training, NOT the MP. Our late Bishop Isidore sent books, people, etc. into Ukraine to train the priests with Patriarch Josyp. Even if they did receive MP training, as some did, at least the ones from the MP who returned to the UGCC or went to the KP realized the error and heresy of belonging to a patriarchate united to godless communism. And these priests DON'T BELONG TO THE MP ANYMORE, as neither Filaret and the KP do.

We were able to train priests without the MP, Bob. That also is documented. Some of our best liturgists never studied in an MP seminary. Ever hear of Robert Taft? Peter Galadza? Andrij Chirovsky? Never set foot in a MP seminary as a student. And you never commented on THE FACT that there are MP seminarians studying in Rome on Rome's nickel.

You still don't read posts, do you? It is you who keep sidestepping the issue of Alexei and his alliance with heretical and apostate Communists. You have to distract from this point because it is the truth. You have to continue to obscure a current situation with this or that tangent of history to detract from the essential point.

Why hasn't Alexei stood up for Orthodoxy and renounced an atheistic system? Is he just weak or is he an apostate? Enquiring minds want to know. He's never renounced it, by the way. Did I mention that? That's his problem and world Orthodoxy's, not mine nor the UGCC.

Alex is completely right. This is about justice and repentance. Patriarch Myroslav Ivan publically asked for forgiveness and repentance for ANY wrongdoing that may have been done to the UGCC from the MP. Any response in Christian charity or justice from the MP?

I acknowledged thanks for those heroic bishops like Nikodim who secretly, without notyfying or asking permission from the MP, trained our clergy. God will remember them. Any thanks for your MP seminarians studying in Rome? Huh?

Do you understand Orthodox ecclesiology? Different Orthodox churches can be in communion with other Orthodox churches ("canonicity", right?) in case you are not familiar with ecclesiastical history.

The following quote of yours displays your lack of understanding of sister churches in communion with each other:

You have to put in a personal slam line to get anywhere, don't you Bob? Really it is quite pathetic. Yes I do not like that slur because I belong to the Ukrainian Catholic Church in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. I'm sure you will be able to slam my response with further slurs and personal attacks.

Do you know the difference between jurisdiction and communion? So in your Orthodox mind, communion is "under the authority of"?

I hope everyone here sees where this is going just as these rampages from Bob have gone in the past. You keep twisting around the issue of Alexei into these jurisdictional/ecclesiastical tangents, etc. etc. The simple facts are that the UGCC has survived and is growing. The UOC KP canonical or not is growing. All outside of MP control, thank God. You can continue to slam and pound your fist on the table all you want, Bob. We are not part of the MP. And again, if we can get some answers, some justice, and some repentance, we can talk.

And I apologize to Alex if I have transcended the Admin's policies by linking to his excellent article. Your knowledge is exceptional and your opinions insightful, forgive me for wanting to share those.

Perhaps also the Admin can remind us of the guidelines for linking or posting to articles, boards, etc.

Dear LatinTrad,
The question of Petrine Primacy is not off limits in discussions here. It's been addressed quite a bit in the past I believe.

Catholic churches have always used communion with Rome as a way to readily verify the canonical status of a local church. There being twenty-two Catholic churches, not all of them are Roman or even Byzantine. So I don't see the problem with discussing it.

At the time the Orthodox of the Eastern Roman world broke communion with Rome (and the churches of the west did not), those “not-in-communion” with Rome lost the office of a final hierarch to appeal to. In the east I think that the only authority that might have claimed such power and authority in the church was the emperor, not the Patriarch. If a local eastern church would appeal to Rome against a decision of the Emperor I imagine it would have been a messy political situation for them.

The Patriarch of Constantinople could not claim that authority for itself so the eastern churches do not have the benefit of a Patriarch that some westerners might imagine they would have.

The Anglican communion had a similar (but more extreme) situation when the Papal prerogatives were challenged in England. The Archbishop of Canterbury could not claim those prerogatives for itself, they were reserved to the King. Now the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot dismiss a bishop anywhere in the communion regardless of their theological position or decisions.

The only recourse in this case is to break communion. Some churches in the Anglican communion are threatening to break communion with the (P)ECUSA, a remedy that would be used in Orthodoxy. This is sometimes (or usually) not enough of a reason for the renegade church to modify its' position or teaching.

Breaking communion is a form of shunning, but it is really the only recourse to a church in a free world. Under a strong tyrant like an Emperor, King or Czar there is always enprisonment or exile. In a free world or across borders all one can do is shun the other party in the hope that they will see the error of their ways.

We have this Kyivan situation, the Macedonian church, ROCOR, OCA, disobediant monasteries and every once in a while a new vagante church turns up somewhere. I don't know the solution to these things, but there is actually no mechanism besides excommunication that I know of in the churches of the east to attend to disputes, and that presupposes permanent division.

That is what makes the Orthodox situation so tragic. We see cracks forming here and there and no real mechanism to prevent it. No one can force the parties together, they need to really want to resolve their differences mutually.

Peace
Michael

Someone once said that they find it interesting that atheists spend so much time arguing against something that does not exist. Perhaps the same could be said for those who deny the existence of the rights of the Ukrainian people and the Church of Kyiv.

I agree with Latin Trad's question/point. Who decides who is "cannonical" and who is not?

In the civil "law" of international relations, one state's recognition of another state is not necessarily binding on another. Nonetheless, there are certain norms associated with that is a "State."

Do such norms exist in the ecclesiastical realm? I don't know. Perhaps there should be.

Still, it would seem to me that recognition from Rome, Constantinople, Moscow, Sofia, Belgrade etc. etc. etc. is NOT an objective criterion for determining what is or is not a proper "Church."

Yes, Rome is overbearing sometimes (OK, a lot of the time). Yes, Rome is still learning to cope with the notion of a sui juris Church in communion with it.

But if acceptance into world big-O Orthodoxy is dependant upon doing the will of Constantinople and/or Moscow, how much better (or worse) is that?

In short, both big-c Catholics and big-o Orthodox talk of the "big tent." As long as no one is actively preaching heresy (which, frankly I don't see in ANY of the churches being discussed on this thread) why can't people just be left alone to their own devices?

Yours,

kl