www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Russo-Orthodox official urges Vatican action on Ukraine dispute

That is a good point Alexis.

I think both the ROC and the UGCC agree that the Soviet period was not the best one for either Church, including the Lviv council of 1946.

Recently, the "self-proclaimed patriarch" of the UGCC met with His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir of Kyiv to discuss these matters in a very cordial way. They agreed that cooperation and discussion is the best way to resolve such matters, without referring to past historical issues.

There are no saints involved in this nasty affair and while both sides claim higher moral ground in the matter than the other, that isn't going to resolve matters but will make them worse.

There are contemporary sociological issues at play there today which the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church cannot ignore. In any event, the people "on the ground" so to speak will not pay attention anything the Vatican or Moscow have to say about it.

My only point is that the Russian Orthodox Church shouldn't be to hard on the Vatican for its ineffectiveness at reigning in the Ukrainian Catholics and "non-canonical" Ukrainian Orthodox.

If those Ukies were as feisty as they are today, not only would 1946 not have happened, 1596 at Brest would not have either!

Alex

Well, I'm sure Greek-Catholics in Ukraine have "returned" to Orthodoxy throughout their checkered past on that score.

But today, the UGCC and their non-canonical counterparts are very much against going to the Russian Orthodox Church.

If anything, the UGCC and their non-canonical Orthodox friends are cooperating in a way that was unheard of before in their history, including sharing the same parish church and facilities, the same Ukrainian-language liturgical books and the like.

In one case that I am aware of, members of the UGCC actually destroyed an Orthodox church in a village but then publicly repented and then rebuilt the church for their Ukrainian Orthodox brothers and sisters. They now share that same Church with them.

That ecumenical movement, in my view, between EC's and Orthodox (abeit non-canonical) is a good thing. Perhaps we cann all unite one day in a single Church with a single Patriarchate in Kyiv - canonicity and communion with this or that other be darned?

I certainly pray for that (using the liturgical texts of the UOC-KP now).

Alex

Dear Dr. Roman,

Welcome back, and good to see you!

Alexis

Yes, a typo sorry

On about 1650 the UGCC Bishops/Metropolitans were at least:
- Luc'k (eparch N Losovsky)
- Peremysl (eparch P. Ovlucynsky - P.Xmeljovskj)
- Pinsk (eparch O. Oranskyj)
- Polock (eparch A. Seljava)
- Smolesnk (eparch A. Kvasnynskyj)
- Volodymyr/Berestja (eparch J. Bakoveckcyj)
- Xolm (eparch M. Tarleckyj)
and of course Kiev (seat in Vilnius, as it was the custom since 1458, well before the Union of Brest).

You know perfectly that since 1648 the cossack wars started with the Khmelnytsky Uprising, with invasion of cossack barbarians from East (Orthodox supported by Moscow) which devastated all right bank Ukraine, and forcibly occupied UGCC eparchies (as Polock), destroyed churches etc.

Still in 1630 the UGCC Metropolitan of Kiev celebrated in the cathedral of St Sophia in Kiev. The 1632 installation in Kiev by Met. Movila was made possible only because Władysław IV, in order to be elected kink of Poland after the death of Sigismund, made a wicked pact with the East-coming cossacks ("Pacta Conventa") which was very prejudicial to the Greek-Catholic Church.

You know also the end of the story: while both the power of Rome and Constantinople over the Ukraine Church was little more than nominal, the Left-Bank Cossacks, supported by Moscow, gave in a few years the whole Ukrainan Church in the hands of Moscow. (the first locum tenens appointed my Moscow was in 1659, the total passage in 1685)

Yes you are right about Lviv: it remained till 1700 an island under Constantinople into UGCC areas (well, there were also other islands). But under Constantinople, not Moscow !!!. But in 1700 the mantle of Constantinople was no more defensible, and this eparchy preferred the mantle of Rome rather than the handcuffs of Moscow.

What do you see the Patriarchate of Moscow seeing as its goal? I would say that seeing its goal as uniting all denominations in Ukraine, including the Western oblasts, and including the UGCC and Vatican Ruthenian eparchy of Mukacheve, into the UOC would be a fair assessment (and one that I think the Patriarchate has been fairly up front about), and not accepting the canonicity of the councils of Brest and Uzhhorod but upholding the canonicity of the council of L'viv, but are you seeing anything beyond that?

Yes, that is exactly the goal of the Moscow Patriarchate!

Thank you for such a clear and concise statement of it!

Alex

You will also note that I made no mention of the Hutu massacre of the Tutsi (or did the Tutsi massacre the Hutu? I always get that wrong. Maybe they both did. Whatever). Mainly I didn't mention it because it doesn't apply to the question at hand.

Also, I can't believe that anybody would reference events of five hundred years ago to justify current policies and positions. It's ridiculous. ...

In all my life, I've heard few things so irelevant to the topic at hand as some of the points raised in this discussion. However Greek Catholics came to be, the fact is that they did. They exist. They have a right to exist by simple virtue of the fact that they do. You haven't got to like it to accept it.

You forget to add that the MP's goal is uniting all denominations in Ukraine, but under its own crown.

This little detail, I've underlined, is not at all secondary.
Lot's of people payed with their life the opposition to the goal of the MP, not only the UGCC/Mukachevo pastors, as Blessed T. Romzha, but also bishops of other Autonomous Ukrainian Churches as Metr. Hromadskyi.

However Moscow has not at all any historical ecclesiastic right on Ukraine (at least on Right Bank): they occupied with the force Ukraine in the 17 and 18-centuries, and imposed their ecclesiastic authority, as well as they did in what is now known as Belarus. Moscow received the Christian faith from Kiev, not the contrary.

We can debate if a true and unified UOC (dreamt by Metr Mojila) should be under the mantle of Rome or of Constantinople (or of both or of none), but surely it shall not be under Moscow.

I agree with everything you have brought to life but Blessed Theodore was not a Bishop of the UGCC but of the Ruthenian Eparchy of Mukachevo.

Thanks. you have been to quick to read my post, I had not the time to correct it

Gentlemen,

Let's avoid terms like 'stupid' or any similar characterizations in relation to points raised by others with which you disagree! There are myriad acceptable ways to express disagreement or to note your opinion that a pont raised is not germane to the topic. Anyone who can't think of one is well-advised to consult a Dictionary of Synonyms & Antonyms and find one!

Many years,

Neil

I think he means me. Okay, well, I hear they're rioting in Greece. Probably it's over the outcome of the Peloponnesian war. I'm sure there would be peace in the Middle East if only the David and Goliath incident had gone differently.

JDC,

I agree with you - the ramifications of the Battle Between the Small and the Tall are felt daily - some question about the quality of the officiating, I think.

Many years,

Neil

I think you missed my point. The goal itself is not important. The point I was trying to make, and as I said, was about the way the ROC is attempting to go about achieving its goal or goals.

Alexis

Hmmm. It happens in the very lands that we are talking about, by the very peoples who are there-or were there in the lifetime of the living, and invovling the very institutions invovled there now. You simply must explain your theory of "relevance" sometime.;)



All sorts of things exist:Orthodox, atheists, communists, hippies, fans of Beethoven, etc. The list can go on. But that is all irrelevant.

Right to exist? What is that? and where is it found? To whom or what does it apply? Does it apply, for instance, to the SSPX, the Anglican Church or cafeteria catholicism?