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

As to the issue of who is a "Mother Church", it would be helpful to remember that we chant in the Octoechos "Rejoice, Holy Sion! Mother of the Churches, abode of God!" The reference of course is to Jerusalem. Incognitus

It is easy for us to confirm that Patriarch Alexis is not the real head of the Ukrainian church and neither is Metropolitan Slabodan.They might be on official Orthodox paper, but then again you can write anything on paper and put a stamp on it say:"This is real and official" Why don't these guys come to the United States, Canada, Brazil, Australia etc,and visit the Ukrainian community(I can go on you know) because they don't have a Ukie community to visit and it's not because of the deodorant that they are using (if any), it's something much more serious.
On the other hand, Patriarch Husar is honored and respected not only in Ukraine but in all the countries that I have mentioned and even more and not only to Ukrainain communities either. Strange isn't it? Other Orthodox bishops (not Ukrainian) also show respect to him. Let's not forget for example that Patriarch Bartholomew sent a letter of congratulations for the opening of the Ukrainian Orthodox University in the city of Lviv and correct me if I'm wrong but Patriarch Bartholamew isn't Ukrainian.
Ukrainian TV station "1+1" made a research and interviewed a number of Ukie citizens throughout Ukraine (not only lviv) and Patriarch Husar was considered to be the most trusted hierarch in the country.
There's no need for further BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
Lauro

Excuse me I wrote "Ukrainian Orthodox University" where it should read "Ukrainian Catholic University", but I guess it's all the same anyway because the Orthodox are welcome to enroll into the University as well.
Lauro

Dear Orthoman,

You make a number of points that I would not disagree with and of course I don't disagree with your position on the establishment of an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate.

As for Patriarch Filaret, again, I don't know him. Yes, he said nasty things about Ukrainian independent statehood etc. as did other bishops and leaders. Of course, things would be different once the Soviet Union began to fall. We all say things to be nice to those who have the power to hurt us.

And not all Ukrainians like him - the autocephalous movement in western Ukraine broke away from him and he has yet to manage to bring unity among the autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox.

Rather than argue about canonicity, I think it is more germane to hope for a unity among Ukrainian Orthodox in one Church and Patriarchate that will, hopefully, be recognized as an autocephlous entity by world Orthodoxy.

If you would like me to speak about issues involving communion with/subservience to Rome, I can. And we have had such discussions before.

If you suggest that I am totally happy with the current and past state of our union with Rome, I am not and have never said so.

As for loyalty to Ukraine, I think it is more a question of our own Ukrainian identity and feeling of belongingness to the historic Ukrainian Church and cultural community.

Nationalism is something that is specific to every Eastern Church in particular.

This is because in times of persecution when most institutions are "down" (like our hydro) it is to the Church that people look to to protect their rights, their language, their culture and their sense of national continuity.

This was so with the Greeks under the Turks, the Copts and others under the Arab Muslims, and it is so with the Russian, Ukrainian and other Churches under communism.

That the ROC is chauvinistic and an imperial Church - that is an historical fact. But that doesn't mean that healing can't come about and it is coming about, as you yourself say.

The ROC itself has relations with other patriarchates, including Oriental Orthodox ones that are not in communion with it. The status of those relationships differs from one Church to another. But the fact that it has such relationships is what I was suggesting for a canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate of Kyiv.

In any event, as you know, I am no longer a poster here and offer these thoughts in response to what I readily acknowledge is a thoughtful and sincere post of yours.

Ultimately, I don't think we disagree on the big picture and I think you know that. Although we may want to rip each other to shreds over details and what-not. But then, we are Slavs, are we not?

I have a lot to learn about the internet medium and chat forums. Unfortunately, I don't think I come equipped with the temperament to successfully appreciate them.

Let my final good wishes be to you, Orthodox brother, and I thank you for your earnest prayer to our patron, St Panteleimon the All-Merciful intercessor before the throne of Almighty God.

Alex

I only intended this forum as news, which it was, of the visit of Patriarch Filaret to a UGCC parish in the US, to which he was invited. The way that this thread was jumped by a certain individual is unfortunate. It was meant as a news item and it quickly digressed.

Suggesting any church is better off subjugated, liquidated or dominated by another, especially by one which is foreign in origin and in cahoots with an atheistic regime, is simply not acceptable to most if not all Ukrainian Catholics. Especially when those same arguments are used by those same persons to describe what the Roman Church has done to the Greek Catholics.

Are we better off? I think ultimately yes because of our communion with Rome. Were we not in communion with Rome we would be somewhere in the fray between the multitude of Orthodox jurisdictions. Has it come at a price and with tears and often unpleasant circumstances? Yes.

But are we not poised in a unique way in Ukraine to possibly be a centerpiece of unity, given the work of Patriarch Lubomyr? Public opinion as mentioned by Lauro above within Ukraine seems to indicate that Patriarch Lubomyr enjoys far more respect and is seen with a greater degree of legitimacy than any current Orthodox hierarch.

And these intra-Orthodox disputes are not limited to Ukraine nor would that likely have been different with the complete liquidation of the UGCC. Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Russia, all struggle with divisions precipitated by this or that group's relationship with the former communist regimes that ruled the countries. Just review the history and relations of the ROCOR, MP, etc.

Divisions amongst Christians not only hurt the local communities but also ultimately injure the unity of entire Body of Christ. For my part I ask forgiveness if I offended anyone here. May God and His Holy Spirit guide our hearts with love and charity towards the realization of communion.

Diak,
Those were very nice words. You made me think and I think I should control my temper a bit more and reflect more before I scribble something down on this forum.
Lauro

Dear Alex:

Since you are leaving the site I hope that you will at least lurk one more time to read this.

Like you mentioned, we probably are in agreement on the big picture but like to disagree on the lower ones! And, as Slavs its in our DNA to argue. Especially me since I'm a mixed breed - Lemko, Polish, and Croatian! So my slavic genes are constantly at odds with each other I guess!

When I was in Russia in 1988 I had a conversation with a young Russian teenager who was amazed that there were Orthodox in America! And, as I told him - My heart is American but my soul is slavic and devoutly Orthodox!" And I guess it is that self analysis which explains me and my temperament. And my dedication to Orthodox apologetics. And sometimes my reactions to what I read here are quick and swift. Like this particular subject which I see as a double standard based on ones ethnic identity. Ukrainian = GOOD! Russian = BAD. Fact of the matter is that not all Russians were communists (I think only 7% were card carrying members) and not all Ukrainians were anti communists. Just as there were KGB agents amongst the people, clergy, and Hierachs in BOTH Russia and Ukraine. This whole subject matter is a perfect example. Because Alexi is perceived as Russian [which he is not (*)] he must publicly atone for his complicty but Denisenko because he is Ukrainian does not.

(*) Alexi was born in Estonia and is a citizen of that country. And he is of German lineage, not Russian.

One of the issues you bring out in your reply I'd like to address -

[Yes, he said nasty things about Ukrainian independent statehood etc. as did other bishops and leaders. Of course, things would be different once the Soviet Union began to fall. We all say things to be nice to those who have the power to hurt us.]

Couldn't agree more. But why doesn't that assessment apply to Alexi and the Russian Clergy as well? Why only in connection with the Ukrainian clergy (including Denisenko) and their collaboration with the communists? Once again you have Ukrainian = GOOD, Russian = BAD! There's good and bad in every ethnic group. The Ukrainians are not now, nor have they ever been all Saints. Just as the Russians are not now, nor have they ever been all saints. Accusations made have to be looked at from a logical view point rather than gossip, innuendo, and lies. I've tried to bring this out in some of my replies. Example being Denisenko becoming acting Patriarch over Alexi if Alexi had so much power and Denisenko was just a little clog in the wheel. But, unfortunately most of it goes on deaf ears. The 1946 issue is another example. To insinuate that the Russian Orthodox Church was sitting around having tea and collaborating with Stalin to destroy the UGCC in 1946 when it was undergoing extreme persecution where hundreds of churchs were being destroyed or converted into secular buildings, thousands of Orthodox were being killed, exiled, or imprisioned is a little far fetched. The ROC had other issues on its mind - namely its survival to plot the downfall of the UGCC. Stalin wanted the destruction of the UGCC because it would be easier for him to control one church than two and he wouldn't have to contend with the power of the Vatican. The ROC was given only two choices - Accept them or reject them and face increased persecution. I have no doubt if the ROC had refused Stalins edict these same people would be in here with their ethnic hatred condemning the ROC for turning its back on them in 1946.

All the answers so far have to do with freedom verses subservience to the big bad Russian Church. They have a mental bloc concerning the point I keep trying to make which is - had the ROC refused - the UGCC would have been destroyed to its very foundations. There would have been no foundation to rebuild from after the fall of communism. Except for maybe a very weaken catacomb church that would have taken a century to bebuild itself. It's a shame that the hatred is so strong that this aspect cannot even be analyzed.

After I post this I'm going back on 'logoff' since I've said all I have to on the Denisenko issue. And the subject has either gone off track or become a 'tit for tat' discussion that will achieve nothing because its already been hashed over so many times before.

I'm pretty sure you will eventually read this because another thing we share is our addiction to this site and the fact we continue to lurk even when logged off! I logoff because I can never remember my damn password and it keeps me from responding to every issue that gets my blood pressure up.

Regarding your health. I think I may have read in one of your posts that you have diabetes. If that is true its another thing we share my friend. I started taking insulin injections two months ago and I'm still not regulated. My blood sugar and emotions go up and down like a yoyo! And I'm pretty pissed off that I can no long sit down and eat a half dozen pierogi's!

Take care my friend. God be with you always.

OrthoMan

P.S. Regarding your participation on the Ukrainian Orthodox website - I submitted two questions. The one on the Icon of 'Extreme Humility' was excellent and I printed it out and have it on the back of the Icon. The one on the dual communion of the Kievan Church with both Rome and Constantinople I completely disagree with (that's when I figured out it was you)

I do respect the fact that when questions come up regarding the Unia or Orthodox relations with the RCC you defer the question to what I assume is a Ukrainian Orthodox priest!

-------

Since I will be logging off I do want to address this comment by Incognito because he seems confused as to what 'automony' is -

[Regarding my previous posting, Orthoman writes that "The UOC-MP received its automony in October 1990 from the Moscow Patriarch." This is not so. As the Administrator correctly reminded all of us, Moscow gave "independence" and "self-government" - neither of which are canonical terms in the Orthodox lexicon - but quite specifically did NOT give autonomy to her "Ukrainian Orthodox Church". Incognitus].

"The Complete Book Of Orthodoxy"

Automonous: Churches which are not fully 'autocephalous' but "SELF GOVERNING" in most of their affairs, such as the automonous Churches in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Sinai, Finland, Japan, China, and Ukraine.

Automony: The designation of an Orthodox Church which is SELF-RULED and automonous.

Bob, to review the history here the fact of the matter was that this thread was a news article. You came crashing in here with all sorts of allegations and charges. The news had to do with the visit of an invited hierarch to another church.

Once again you have not read nor contemplated the threads here. Acknowledgement has been made of joint suffering all around. There were countless Russian Catholic and Orthodox martyrs. That was never an issue of debate. Patriarch Myroslav Ivan publicly asked forgiveness from the MP, which was not reciprocated.

Also it is apparent from history that initiatives by individuals within the MP, i.e. Nikodim and others to support Greek Catholics were just that, individual underground efforts. You notice that we acknowledged support. But it was because of Christian individuals, not directives of the MP.

If you can produce an ukaz from the MP officially granting sanctuary, protection and training for the UGCC, please point me towards it. My former pastor was turned in by an MP priest, so some of us are familiar with exceptions to your suggestions as well. Now that's support, being turned in to the KGB by clergy.

Bob, you can't even leave this forum without any sign of remorse or apology for uncharitable remarks, slurs, attacks, etc. but have to attack here to the end with your insinuations. Mental bloc? Hatred so strong? Believe me, we can see where the hatred and mental bloc are coming from. Have you read the posts asking for forgiveness above?

It's so ludicrous to think with the plurality and either lack of jurisdictional unity or questionable nature of the hierarchy that the UGCC would have been better off with its absorption into the MP. We would now be somewhere in the jurisdictional froth in the region, and not a unified Church. But wishing the UGCC completely gone, I think may be the bottom line here, not her ultimate jurisdictional fate?

All of your questions you posed were answered. You might not like the answers, but they were answered. We still have yet to hear any of yours. Which Russian Orthodox Church of Moscow was that again? MP? ROCOR? Who is the true Church of Moscow? The allegations of Father Gleb Yakunin and others?

You brought up the initial allegations against Filaret, by the way. Do you expect us to just sit and take your hate-mongering sitting down? As love is blind so apparently is hate (even to the point of apparently being unable to read posts here).

Absorption and subjugation to an outside entity rarely leads to positive results, whether in a civil realm or in an ecclesial realm. You seem to have difficulty understanding the concept of freedom which is not always an objective one. It is not that black and white. There was much suffering on all sides.

There remain serious questions and concerns from within and without the Church of Moscow/MP (as opposed to the Church of Moscow/ROCOR or others) especially about its leadership.

Bob, you still don't seem to get it after all of these posts. Which Orthodox church would we belong to? MP? UOC-KP? ROCOR? UAOC? Unfortunately the divisions and disarray in Orthodoxy are visible as well. It is not the Greek Catholics' fault that other Russian and Ukrainian jurisdictions do not want to rally around Alexei. And if the MP is so willing to help us, why can't we get our property back from them? And if the UGCC is the vehicle for Ukrainian ecclesiastical unity, what should that matter to the Church(es) of Moscow?

As the UGCC we are that catacomb church you speak of, and while we are still rebounding we came out of 1989 and went right to work. Not 100 years, but right away. The fruits and labor of our martyrs are visible and multiplying.

We of the UGCC were very much decimated. We owe our survival certainly not to the MP, nor Rome, nor even ourselves, but to God and the intercessions of the Theotokos and the Saints.

Again I ask for forgiveness for being out of line here.

"The 1946 issue is another example. To insinuate that the Russian Orthodox Church was sitting around having tea and collaborating with Stalin to destroy the UGCC in 1946 when it was undergoing extreme persecution where hundreds of churchs were being destroyed or converted into secular buildings, thousands of Orthodox were being killed, exiled, or imprisioned is a little far fetched."
Prescinding from the confusing syntax, Orthoman seems to be asserting the the Moscow Patriarchate was undergoing extreme persecution in 1946, at which moment, according to Orthoman, hundreds of churches were being destroyed or removed from ecclesiastical use. This is not accurate. In 1946 the Moscow Patriarchate had about 20,000 functioning churches - up from less than 500 in 1938. I suggest any of the standard histories on the subject (perhaps Jane Ellis, or Dmitry Pospielovsky). It is certainly true that thousands of Orthodox were imprisoned, exiled and/or killed by the Stalin regime even in the immediate post-war period (including many Red Army soldiers), but hierarchs and clergy were being released, monasteries and seminaries were being re-opened . . . a full-blown resumption of the persecution of the Moscow Patriarchate did not really begin until 1959 or thereabouts, during the Khrushchev period.
As to the autonomy which Orthoman ascribes to the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate" - I suggest some more authoritative canonical study. Authentic ecclesiastical autonomy is conferred upon a Local Church by the Mother Church in a Tomos for that purpose, and in that Tomos the word "autonomy" must appear, clearly and unequivocally expressed. One could refer to the Tomos of Autonomy for the Orthodox Church in Japan for an example. There was, and is, no Tomos of Autonomy for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate. I am well familiar with the dictionary definitions of "autonomy", but the canonical definition of that term as applied to a Local Church is another matter. In practice, it would not be difficult to list several contemporary Orthodox dioceses and judicatories which "run their own affairs", so to speak, but nobody calls them "Autonomous Churches". Incognitus

[As to the autonomy which Orthoman ascribes to the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate" - I suggest some more authoritative canonical study. Authentic ecclesiastical autonomy is conferred upon a Local Church by the Mother Church in a Tomos for that purpose, and in that Tomos the word "autonomy" must appear, clearly and unequivocally expressed. One could refer to the Tomos of Autonomy for the Orthodox Church in Japan for an example. There was, and is, no Tomos of Autonomy for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate.]

Tomos was made effective in 1990, and was acknowledged and
re-confirmed by the Church of Russia in 2000.

http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/0008g.html

DETERMINATION OF THE CONSECRATED JUBILEE BISHOPS' COUNCIL OF THE
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH REGARDING THE UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

from Communications Service of Department of External Church
Relations, Moscow patriarchate

Moscow, Church of Christ the Savior, 13-16 August 2000

The consecrated jubilee bishops' council, after carefully engaging in
brotherly discussion of the situation in Ukraine described by His
Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev and all-Ukraine and members of
the council who are bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox church resolved

1.� To confirm the status of the independence and autonomy of the
Ukrainian Orthodox church which received the right of broad autonomy
by the decision of the bishops' council of the Russian Orthodox church
in 1990...

4.� In matters covered in these ((mentioned)) points, to be guided by
the standards in the patriarchal Tomos of 1990 ((rather than by the
Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is superceded by the
Tomos so far as the Ukraine is concerned)).

Dear Orthoman,
With all due respect. Millions of Ukrainians will not accept, respect nor recognize any document from Moscow. Since they don't recognize the UGCC, UAOC nor the UOC-KP. It's only logical.

Now let's talk about English Grammar.
We do not say THE UKRAINE, we say UKRAINE.
We use the article "the" with countries that have plural in their names for example:
-The United STATES of America
-The Virgin ISLANDS
-The United Kingdom (due to a number of countries that make up the kingdom)
Now I think that was pretty simple,wasn't it?
and I'm a Ukie Brazilian
Lauro

Diak, Lauro, and others,

Ignore him. He is stuck in his ways and will not change. We will go around in circles forever with him and others of his type. We know the truth. We know. It's our church; a church of martyrs.

Pray for him and leave it be.

-uc

This issue appears to be very complex. In a quick internet search I came up numerous articles that state that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (MP) is self-governing but not really autonomous. If it was actually autonomous I don't think that, in August 2000, Ukrainian President Kuchma would be petitioning the ROC-MP to grant the UOC-MP autonomy. I look forward to future posts providing the current official status.

RFE/RL article on Orthodox Church in Ukraine, 8/22/2000 [lists.delfi.lv]

Excerpts:

�President Leonid Kuchma sent a telegram to the patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, Aleksii II, asking him and the Council of Bishops to consider the possibility of granting autonomy to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (subordinated to the Moscow Patriarchate). According to Interfax, Kuchma's request was considered on 15 August and was reportedly backed by "a number of bishops from Western Ukraine led by Bishop of Vyshhorod Pavel." The forum, however, refused to consider the petition, saying that secular authorities should not interfere in Church affairs.

As reported in previous issues of "RFE/RL Poland, Belarus, and Ukraine Report," the situation of Ukrainian Orthodoxy remains very difficult. Currently, Ukraine has three Orthodox Churches: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchate), and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. The Moscow Patriarchate recognizes the Church subordinated to itself as the only canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine, viewing followers of the other two Churches as "schismatics."

The official status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) is unclear, however. In 1992 the Russian Orthodox Church granted its Ukrainian branch the right of self-governance. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) has its own Synod of Bishops; it is empowered to consecrate new bishops without any special authorization from Moscow; and it can also canonize its own saints. Technically speaking, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) is an autonomous structure. But in this case it appears that names do matter: the word "autonomous" does not appear in the Church's name or in any of the documents related to that Church.

The autonomy of the UOC-MP is somewhat clarified from the title of the Church. It calls itself part of the Moscow Patriarchate. Were it really autonomous, one would think it would take the title of Kyivan Patriarchate since it claims to be the largest in numbers, or just simply call itself the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church".

An autonomous church would likely not retain the title of another patriarchate if it was truly and fully autonomous. The OCA does not refer to itself as the "OCA/MP".

Administrator writes:

[If it was actually autonomous I don't think that, in August 2000, Ukrainian President Kuchma would be petitioning the ROC-MP to grant the UOC-MP autonomy. I look forward to future posts providing the current official status.]

The problem is that you are reading press reports written by western journalists who don't know the first thing about Orthodox ecclesiology. And because of that, are using incorrect and wrong terminology.

Kuchma was not petitioning the ROC-MP for automony (which it already has) but for autocephally. There is a difference between the two.

As I stated before, an automonous church is administratively self governing. It can elect its own Synod of Bishops but must submit the election of its chief hierach to its parent church for approval before the consecration can take place. It must also depend on the mother church for its 'Holy Chrism'. In all other areas it functions as an independent church.

Works similiar to the way the UGCC works with the Vatican. In spite of what you all may think, the UOC-KP has the same amount of freedom and independence from Moscow as the UGCC does from Rome. You may not like it, accept it, or admit it, but its a fact!

An autocephalous Church on the other hand, is a completely independent church. It is completely independent administratively and can elect and consecrate its own Bishops including its chief hierach. It needs approval from no other church. And it can make and distribute its own Holy Chrism.

Autocephalous: literally "self headed". An autocephalous Church has received its right from its mother church (usually the patriarchate under which it first began) for self governance by local synods. An autocephalous church is given the right to elect and consecrate its own leader.

Examples:

The Antiochian Archdiocese here in the U.S. has just received its automony from the Patriarch of Antioch. This means it can elect its own synod of bishops. It can govern itself administratively and therefore make its own decisions without any interference from its mother church in Antioch. However, God Forbid, if anything should happen to Metropolitan Phillip the name of his chosen successor would have to be submitted to the Antiochian Patriarchate for approval before he can be consecrated. And they still have to depend on the Antiochian Patriarchate to receive the Holy Chrism for their Sacraments. In all other areas they function as an independent church.

The OCA is autocephalous and therefore completely independent both administratively and in the election of its synod of Bishops including its chief hierach. When Metropolitan Herman was elected it needed no approval from Moscow before he was consecrated. It also makes and distributes its own Holy Chrism. It is tied to the other automonous and autocephalous churches by sharing the exact same faith (doctrines) and Sacraments. And shares inter communion with all of them. Some don't accept its autocephally but all accept its canonicity so its is therefore, in communion with all of them.

OrthoMan