www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Wanting to discuss with an Ukrainian Greek-Catholic priest

I want to know more about the Ukrainian Church. And about its liturgy in the original Ukrainian language. Is there anyone here that can start a... dialogue with me about this Church. I don't know many things about it, excepting the fact it was persecuted like the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church.

I'm not a priest of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic or other church but:

The UGCC dates from the Union of Brest-Litovsk in 1596 when the Metropolitan of Kiev and much of the Ukraine and Byelorussia went under Rome, partly in the hope that it would end persecution from their Polish rulers, which didn't work. Various groups and places went under Rome through about 1700.

Over time thanks in large part to the lands switching to Russian rule the UGCC's home territory shrank to Galicia, long Austrian then Polish and now the south-western corner of the Ukraine.

The Ukrainian Catholics were supposed to be just like the Orthodox in their practices but over the years have disobeyed Rome and latinised themselves, adopting many Roman Rite practices. Their statement by doing this seems to be: a few Russianisms (icons, onion domes, three-bar crosses, married priests, the Cyrillic alphabet) to show they're not Polish but at the same time Polishisms (clean-shaven priests, devotions like the Rosary and Sacred Heart) to show they're not Russian either.

Their original liturgical language is not Ukrainian: that's a practice dating to about the 1970s. It's Slavonic like the Russian Orthodox but in their accent and with their own kind of chant.

The USSR took over Galicia from Poland during World War II and banned the UGCC right after the war. The Soviets hated it because it was under Rome and thus not under local control. It went underground until the late 1980s-early 1990s when it resurfaced to many people's surprise complete with an acting metropolitan. A modern story of heroism and a traditional Catholic church's survival in adversity.

The Ukraine like Russia proper is largely secular today but most churchgoers are Russian Orthodox - except in Galicia and Ruthenia (the part right on the border with Slovakia), which are majority Greek Catholic. (The part of Ruthenia now in the Ukraine was taken by the USSR around the same time as Galicia but was never Polish. It was Austrian then Czechoslovak. Its Greek Catholics are not in the UGCC.)

Over the past several decades the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church has been deepening her self-understanding, which is encouraging.

Fr. Serge

I was not aware that Rome had ever mandated our maintaining the purity of our Eastern traditions. We requested to keep them at the Union of Brest and were granted permission. It was only at Vatican II that we were formally exhorted (again, not a matter of obedience per se) to re-embrace these things.

Your analysis of the reasons for the latinizations, though, is quite good:
I also think you're right here:
This statement, however, I do not understand:
HB Josyf Slipyj was the head of the UGCC the whole time he was in prison. He retained that status after he was released and went into exile, with Rome giving him the added honors of the cardinal's hat and the title of Major Archbishop. These honors were then passed on to his successor, Myroslav Ivan Lubachivsky. At no time was this a secret, and while the identities of bishops and metropolitans operating within Ukraine in those years was surely a secret, that doesn't seem to be what you're saying by "... complete with an acting metropolitan."

Most members of the UOC-MP--at least in Central and Western Ukraine--don't consider themselves Russian Orthodox but Ukrainian Orthodox. It is the Ukrainians of the UGCC, the UOC-KP and the UAOC who consider the members of the UOC-MP to be "Russian Orthodox." It's a matter of perspective.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Thanks, Deacon Richard. For centuries between Brest-Litovsk and V2 Rome was telling the Greek Catholics not to latinise. For example when St Pius X set up the Russian Catholic Church after a few Russian intellectuals converted on their own, he said their practice must be 'nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter' (no more, no less and no different to) Russian Orthodox practice.

Yes, an acting metropolitan who didn't claim the title of major archbishop but actually ran the UGCC in the Ukraine (from his flat and IIRC undercover as a labourer of some kind) whilst the major archbishop was in prison or exile: Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sterniuk).

What's the situation nowadays? Do they follow the proper Byzantine rite or they still have Roman rite influentions? Are these influences aproved by any local Synod and introduced in the Ieratikon/Slujebnik ?

The situation now is the same only with modern Roman Rite influence so for example goodbye, Saturday Vespers, hello, vigil Mass. Local synods did a lot of the latinisations: for example that of Zamosc centuries ago adding the filioque to the creed.

As Saint Pius X confirmed, the canonical territory of the Greek-Catholic Church of Kyiv and All Rus had not shrunk; rather her ability to function freely in that territory had been seriously restricted by political events. Thus Saint Pius X exhorted Metropolitan Andrew Utere iure tuo.

Fr. Serge

There are no Saturday Vespers nowadays?

My personal opininon: latinisation is a very big wall between Greek-Catholics everywhere and their Orthodox counterparts. I think one big step in unity would be return to the Byzantine rite as reflected by the Typikon and Ieratikon/Slujebnik. My opinion!

Latinization is a very big wall between Greek Catholics and other Greek Catholics, since there is no consensus within or between our Churches on whether to expunge or retain them. There is a lack of consensus on what being Greek Catholic actually means.

The phenomenon of latinizations is a natural consequence of the paradoxical fact that we're not in communion with the EOC even though our Liturgy is the same, but by the same token we are in communion with the RCC, even though our Liturgy is very different. Like it or not, this is very confusing for people.

My thought is that this problem cannot be resolved until communion is re-established, or at least close to being re-established.

The real problem, however, is the fact that every Christian tradition contains elements that are divine in origin as well as elements that are human in origin. This in itself is a good thing, and essential to the incarnational nature of the Church. However, it becomes a problem when we fail to discern between the divine and the human, which is a discernment that can only be made with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who guides in ways that are, well, ineffable. I believe that our present divisions are the result of this failure, and that the healing of these divisions will take place when we learn to hear His voice in a way that is still unfamiliar to us.

Let us all pray that we may learn this!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

LiturgicalStuff, in nearly 17 years of seriously following this stuff I've never actually seen a Ukrainian Catholic parish do it and at most three Greek Catholic parishes of any kind do so. Locally the Ruthenian Greek Catholic old-timers remember when it was done but that was a long time ago.

Epiphanius, that was a big reason why they self-latinised. Of course it's understandable. But they were wrong. They were 'proving their loyalty to Rome'... by disobeying Rome.

YF,

I still don't see this as "disobeying Rome." You gave an isolated quotation from Pope St. Pius X, which I appreciate, but that hardly constitutes 200 years of continuous direction not to latinize.

I am aware that "praestantia ritus latini" was never an official teaching, but it was a de facto policy.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I think that the main issues of the communion with the Roman Church is not latinisation. It is not the idea of those who signed this communion.

Have just read this entire thread through three times but cannot follow the discussion, which does not seem to make much sense.

On the one hand, incidentally, the praestantia latini ritus was indeed official teaching (cf. Benedict XIV), but had ceased to be so about 100 years before Vatican II.

I suggest a careful reading of Father Cyril Korolevsky's study of Uniatism.