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

"I was just told by a former Ukrainian Catholic that when he joined his former UGC parish he had to sign a paper to be willing to fight for Ukraine if need be! What does that have to do with joining a Church?"

That's funny Orthoman, when I joined I only had to promise to eat sour cream with pierogi and giving up wearing green on St. Patrick's Day...replacing it with the blue and the gold. What a load of nonsense, sounds like someone fed you a line of bull. Don

Orthoman is Robert G. Tallick?

It figures!

Yep

In Christ,
Anthony

What is the significance of his name?

I'll take your word for it
With all due respect to the posters on this board, I agree! It does seem that the Ukraine comes before the faith.

It is not good to paint a broad general brush and I know that we have polar opposites among the Ukrainians here in many important ways. To cite one issue very important to me some posters don't seem to care at all about domestic missions while Diak puts his heart, soul, time, money and prayers into Mission Kansas. But the statement was how does it seem to outsiders? A point unfortunately first raised by Orthoman.

If we could take a blind poll here on the question I think a lot of people would agree with us.

And unfortunately this comment matches my personal experience in Ukie parishes around Chicago. It was interesting that Logos Teen could pick up on that here without (presumably) the benefit of a Ukrainian parish to attend in his area.

It's a big turnoff

For reasons you have cited and some others, I think you are right Logos Teen.

Before we all get our noses bent out of shape over this I am not saying the UGCC is uncanonical or the martyrs died in vain. I do not justify what happened at the 1946 Sobor and I don't take Tallicks's position on Russian Orthodoxy -MP.
Dear friend Diak,
I think LogosTeen already knows a lot about what happened in 1946 and subsequently. And I believe that he has a profound sympathy for the horrible situation and events of the period, like I do.

I have been reading his commentary for a long time and I think he honors the Ukrainian martyrs.

LogosTeen was commenting about how the Ukrainian situation seems to outsiders in general based upon the kind and quantity of postings we have here, and I agree with him.

In Christ and begging everyone's forgiveness
Michael

Brian, there is a very big difference at least from my perspective. Filaret renounced that system publically and has devoted himself to the restoration of the Kyivan Orthodox Patriarchate free from Muscovite control. Alexei on the other hand is still a spokesman for that system.

And while yes, Filaret may have been part of the MP he does not seem to have the checkered background of active participation in the KGB and Party orginazations as did Alexei II. That is documented, and not slander.

Alex's answer on the Ukrainian Orthodoxy page addresses the issue very well.

Again, if such a renounciation was proclaimed by Alexei II I would be willing to accept him or anyone who makes heartfelt contrition as a prodigal for their past actions regardless of nationality or jurisdiction. To me this is an issue of faith and actions far more than nationalism.

I agree that from the outside it may seem a very nationalistic situation. But the reality is that Ukraine is a country decimated by millions who died over the last 100 years from Muscovite control and oppression and one should take that into consideration. I personally know many people with dead relatives who were victims of the NKVD or later the KGB.

And like Don, when I reconciled with the Ukrainian Catholic Church many years ago all I was asked to do after the profession of faith, confession and Holy Communion was to eat more varenyky and holubtsi downstairs at the dinner than I could humanly handle...

Teen of the Incarnate Logos writes:

[However, OrthoMan has a perfectly valid point. It really does seem to outsiders that the Ukrainian state comes first, and religious affiliation second. This would seem to be the reason why a Church of the Catholic Communion and a seemingly uncanonical Orthodox Church have bonded against the ultimate foe: not heterodoxy, heresy, or schism, but the Russian Church. It's simply very difficult for a non-Ukrainian to understand or sympathize with this.]

It's nice to see that at least some one can get below the sarcasm to the points that are trying to be made!

Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Church are reluctant to give any kind of autocephally to the Ukrainian Church (both Orthodox & Papal Catholic). Why? The above analysis is a beginning as to the reasons.

Brian writes:

[Although I hold no brief for the MP, I can't see how in Alex's answer to the question about "Filaret" excusing him for his work in the MP during the Soviet years and loyalty to that State, we still bandy about the KGB label for Patriarch Alexei??? It just does not seem consistant. Both of these Church leaders lived under a system, we can only imagine. Few distinguished themselves for their bravery against that State. Few are called to be Martyrs. Filaret and Alexei both were among those who were not the bravest. Just don't call one "Agent" this or that without mentioning that Filaret also had links to the Soviet State.]

Touch� Brian! Another one who is able to get beyond the sarcasm to understand some of the points being made. One of which is that not only Russians were Communists and KGB agents, but Ukrainians too! Check the ethnic background of the leaders of the communist party and you may be surprised!

As far as the 1946 issue is concerned. Once again until one of you can give me an explaination
on how the UGCC would have been better off today if the ROC had taken the only other option it was given by Stalin, and not try and get around it by quoting Bishop Kallistos (whom the question wasn't addressed to) I will continue to see it as hatred for the ROC that is so strong that it defies common sense.

You can bet your life if I should ever meet Bishop Kallistos, it will be the first question I will ask. The second will be how I can believe in the 'Immaculate Conception' and still be considered Orthodox. But that is another issue.

As stated, until then, I asked the question of those in here who make the accusation against the MP for the decision made in 1946.

OrthoMan

Michael, were have you been? Yes, Mr. Tallick has hung around here for years with his hit and run Roman Catholic/Greek Catholic bitterness attacks. And even if he says he will leave, well, look above.

Why should we expect anything other than complete domination of our church from you, Bob? Why would, in your mind, there be any other option that complete domination by the MP? Well, 1946 happened and we have survived.

We as Greek Catholics have survived. The Ukrainian Orthodox have survived. And now we thrive. We have begun construction on our Patriarchal Sobor in Kyiv. And Patriarch Filaret thrives. All outside of the control of Patriach ALexei II and company, although they continue to interfere such as the appeal about the legal registration of the UOC-KP which was a laughable and pitiful attempt. And Moscow has the gall to complain about Catholic proselytization when they attempt to interfere in other countries to prevent the erection of other CHristian churches.

As I have said before, my problem is not with the faithful or clergy of the MP. My problem is with a public church leader who has never renounced the atheistic communist system which put him and sustained his power.

Implicit acceptance of heresy and apostasy is still acceptance unless one renounces these. All Ukrainian/Russian politics aside. This is much bigger than some interior differences on opinion about the Patriarch vs. Major Archbishop. This is about a Patriarch who has never, repeat never, renounced the godless system publically that was responsible for the suppression of his own church and for the destruction of Christianity over much of the world.

Hey Yobko (Orthoman),

Is it your goal in life to sit around steam abou the various Kyivan churches? You always seem to be so quick to take a shot at them at any chance that is given to you. Why?

And if you were to meet. Bishop Kallistos, that would be the first thing you ask him.

Why do you dislike our church and us so much? What have we done to hurt you, yobko?

Just wondering.

-uc

Diak writes:

[And while yes, Filaret may have been part of the MP he does not seem to have the checkered background of active participation in the KGB and Party orginazations as did Alexei II. That is documented, and not slander.]

Ya gotta be kidding me!

From PDS Russian Religion News Service Stetson Religious News) February 1997:

(Please note the last paragraph)

Filaret's story is quite typical for the stormly post-soviet period. This prominent church leader, after the election of Alexis II instead of him as patriarch of Moscow and all-Rus by the local council of 1990 contrary to all expectations, began a harsh opposition against his former colleagues in the Holy Synod. Originally repenting and swearing on the Gospel not to conduct schismatic activity he almost immediately upon his return from Moscow organized, with the support of the former president and father of Ukrainian independence, Leonid Kravchuk (some reports indicated their had nieghboring dachas), an independent church structure, the Ukrainian Orthodox church (Kiev patriarchate). At this time all the financial means of the Kievan metropolia, the richest in the RPTs, was transferred to his hands. Filaret was immediately recognized at the legal head of the Orthodox of Ukraine by the Kievan leaders, who announced a new course in the "emancipation from the vestiges of the soviet empire."

The paradox in this is that of all church leaders of the soviet era, really it was Filaret who most actively cooperated with the old authorities. Nowhere was the least church activity so suppressed "from above" as in Ukraine. Numerous cases are known when by Filaret's will priests were forbidden to minister because of church restoration work that was not sanctioned by the metropolitan.

=========

Once again, your info is one sided.

OrthoMan

Diak writes:

[We as Greek Catholics have survived. The Ukrainian Orthodox have survived.]

WHY? And HOW Diak? You still have not answered my question. Once again, if the ROC had refused Stalins threat and turned its back on the UGCC thus insuring its promised death, and increased persecution of the ROC, how would the UGC have been better off then it was at its ressurection? Where would all the TRAINED PRIESTS have come from? Certainly not from the U.S. or western Europe where there is a shortage of UGC priests.

Either answer the question to validate your accusations or cease with the slander!

You people are so filled with ethnic hatred that you are unable to use either logic or common sense when you spread your venom!

OrthoMan

Orthoman,

You seem to be the one filled with ethnic hatred of the Ukrainians- and I have been feeling that for over a year now, and I am sure I am not the only one.

God save and protect your faithful church and people of Kyiv.

-uc

Your Stetson article is a good one. C'mon Bob, you can do better that that. Where is the hate? Seems like it's coming from you. Wanting to see an entire church liquidated I would call hate.

One more time. This is about Alexei, not the clergy or faithful of the MP. Read above.

Of course Filaret would want to be "schismatic" with church lead by a Commmunist sympathizer and supporter at best and heretic and apostate at worst. I can't help it if he is acting out his conscience and being repentant for his past.

And a portion of the MP did in fact completely comply with Stalin, again which is documented. You can ask the descendants of Father Kostelnyk and those coerced to participate in the fake Sobor of 1946.

We had priests trained in other places besides St. Petersburg. There are MP priests studying in Rome, by the way. I am greatly thankful for such heroes as Metropolitan Nikodim and others who sheltered and supported Greek Catholics. But they did this not as representatives of the MP, for which they would have been disciplined by the MP hierarchy but as Christian clergy in secret.

It is higly 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. :rolleyes:

You continue to try to detract from the essential issue. It is not just Ukrainains. Gleb Yakunin and others who tried to make heroic stands in conscience against Alexei and his positions regarding the party were defrocked and punished.

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.

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?

We won't even go into his psychosis about proselytization of Catholics in Russia when he interferes with foreign jurisdictions such as in Estonia or the KP trying to establish autocephalous churches independent of the MP.

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

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:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/149/57.0.html.

Here's a real lulu:
"While some Orthodox activists have argued
that the church should again become the state religion, Patriarch Alexei II
reiterated his position that it would be wrong and "harmful" for the
church. "We know what it leads to," the patriarch said. "The church
inevitably turns into a government structure."
Office of News Services, Presbyterian Church of USA

From a Russian site, eng.terror99.ru/publications/100.htm

"The story of the post-communist Russian Orthodox Church is one of lost opportunities. After the failure of the 1991 pro-communist coup, Gleb Yakunin, a dissident priest and member of the parliament, 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."

This is only a microscopic sampling and there's a lot more where that came from which could go on for days. Just Alexei's statements about the Pope's visit to Ukraine would take up pages and pages. Notice none of these above are Ukrainian or Catholic sites. It's apparent that someone in the world outside of the UOC/KP or UGCC also has grave suspicions about "Patriarch" Alexei II.

I will say again that I greatly respect and venerate the martyrdom of the Russian Orthodox Church under Communism as she suffered greatly. 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.

My beef comes down squarely 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.

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.