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

under its miter. I said "into the UOC."

Indeed it is not: at present Met. Volodymyr and All Ukraine is in communion with the rest of the Church through the place of Moscow in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church. Myself I should hope that he will take his place there as Patriarch Volodymyr, but that day has not yet dawned.

Lots of people payed with their life to achieve the goal of the MP, not only the UOC/Mukachevo pastors, as St. Maxim Sandovich and the thousands with him at Talerhof, but also bishops loyal to Moscow as Met. Vladmir Bogoyavlensky of Kiev and Galicia the Neomartyr.

That Moscow has canonical right to Ukraine-both banks-as is born by the historical facts: Met. St. Peter came from Galicia way off in the East and translated the see way off in the West in Moscow: the lineage of Pat. Kirill of Moscow goes straight to Met. St. Michael of Kiev. That's why "Met. Isidore of Kiev" is called "of Kiev," although he never set foot in Kiev. He settled in Moscow, his see.
How did the Poles and Lithuanians occupy it?

The same Rurikids who rules all over Rus' and Ukraine ruled in Moscow and founded its dynasty.


no, they brought it: that is why the Polish Kings and Lithuanians Dukes were so keen on enforcing the Union of Brest: the sentiments of their Orthodox subjects.


And St. Andrew was martyred in Greece, but Constantinople was its patriarchate.

It was under New Rome.

It was never under Old Rome.

Its recent history has all been under the Third Rome, so never say never.

One first has to know where it intends to go in order evaluate how it is going about getting there.

In all fairness if one is going to look at the historical place of the Muscovite Patriarchate and questions of "canonical Churches", "self-titled patriarchs" etc. one cannot ignore the very irregular creation of the Moscow Patriarchate itself. Boris Godunov sequestered Patriarch Jeremias until he acceded to elevating his candidate. There was no Synodal election (see Fr. Borys Gudziak's Harvard dissertation).

Kyiv existed centuries before Moscow as an ecclesial reality; it is nonsensical for Kyiv as the ecclesial mother of Rus' to have its autocephaly rejected by the "canonical" late-comer Muscovite Patriarchate in the light of history. St. Peter Moghila never considered himself as anything other than the Metropolitan of Kyiv and never titled himself as a hierarch of the Muscovite Patriarchate.

The people of Ukraine themselves are acting to create a single Orthodox church (as President Yushchenko reminded us Monday evening in his presentation here in Kansas). The latest CIA numbers have the UOC-KP at 50.4%, nearly double the UOC-MP.

While I am pleased Metropolitan +Vladimir is having dialogue as a representative of the Muscovite Patriarch with our Patriarch +Sviatoslav, he seems to have bigger issues with Orthodox unity over his shoulder within his own Metropolia. There are dozens of outstanding legal challenges by the UOC-KP to existing UOC-MP properties.

In any case it is very positive that our Patriarch +Sviatoslav is perceived as a positive voice in Christian unity and that somehow we can facilitate the dialogue.

What does that mean? The Union of Brest was with the nationis Ruthenae according to the bull of Clement VIII.

I don't even know what to do with this. Is this blindness, or dishonesty, or is it something else? If things had wrapped up 60 years ago, Moscow wouldn't have raised this discussion.



Sure. To all of these. At any rate you can't just decree that they're over, steal their property, kill their leadership, and then when you get caught cry that things aren't going your way.

I'm not one for quoting wars (though I was in my younger days..go look in the archives), so this will probably my last reply to you about the matter, but once again I think you've missed my point. I'm not saying that the ROC doesn't know where it wants to go or what its goals are. Au contraire, the ROC is universally known for having quite the agenda!

My point is that the processes the ROC seems to be utilizing a very unpleasant quasi-blackmail shenanigan wherein a meeting to perhaps talk about how to possibly[/i0 move forward in [i]discussing Catholic-Russian Orthodox relations is held out to the Pope of Rome like a carrot on a stick, with the condition for meeting being that the Catholic Church has to do x, y, and z in Ukraine and whatever else the ROC wants. What I draw from this is something that I feel that others should draw, which is a sense that the ROC is willing to put pecuniary interests ahead of the interests of working towards Christian unity, to the detriment of all of us.

Whatever the goal, that is not the way to go about it. IMHO.

Alexis

The problem here is that we tend to think of Religious Freedom as a given, and we fail to realize that the old paradigm was "cujus regio, ejus religio;" in other words, the State determined what religious body the people of the realm belonged to. As Diak pointed out: Take away the concept of Religious Freedom, and the State can and will say that some religious bodies "have no right to exist!"


Peace,
Deacon Richard

EP Jeremiah II returned to Constantinople, and after a little wrangling (the Pope of Alexandria was a hold out) a Resident Synod which included all the Patriarchs added Moscow as their fifth. One of the results was jurisdiciton of Ukraine, or rather Poland-Lithuania and including the Rus'/Ruthenians reverting free and clear to Constantinople.


Even if it were true, so?

You are positing Kiev and Moscow as seperate entities. History and the facts demonstrate that they are not. Whether you are UGCC and and have to deal with the lineage that your Major Archbishop claims spending 267 years in Vilnius/Lithuania (not to mention the 15 years it spent in Rome, nor the 73/98/112/118-32 (depending how you assess it) years before that its supreme pontiff, the Pope of Rome, spent at Avignon etc.) and then 290(+) years it spent in L'viv; or UAOC/UOC-KP and have to recognize the same line before 1917 that Moscow does except for 169-87 years (disputed metropolitans), in both cases you have to explain Met. Isidore of Kiev being enthroned at Moscow, as his predecessors as Metropolitans of Kiev and All Rus' had been for the preceeding 136 years. The 245 years that the Metropolitan of All Rus' at Moscow could not/did not exercise physical jurisdiction in Kiev is the shortest of any line that claims the lineage of Met. St. Michael I of Kiev.


No quotation marks about it:Canonical Orthodoxy, non-canonical Orthodoxy, the Vatican, the UGCC, the Ruthenian "sui juris church" and history are all in perfect agreement that Met. Isidore of Kiev was enthroned as the canonical Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus', and that he was so enthroned at Moscow.

As for "nonsensical," such are the fortunes of history. Myself, I support the autocephaly of Met. Volodymyr of Kiev and All Ukraine, and his immedite elevation into a patriarch. However I argue that from history, not against it.

Met. St. Peter styled himself "Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus'," although Constantinople used the title "Little Russia," (a term which originated in the chancery there, not Moscow's, which long made no distinction among the Rus'). He wasn't in the Patriarchate of Moscow and All Rus'. That had been agreed in 1589, and ratified in 1595 in New Rome, not Old Rome.


You mean former President. Those "latest" numbers are over 5 years old, and of dubious worth, given the nature of religious affliation in Ukraine among the Orthodox (it would be like gaging the number of those in Subcarpathia who want to go UGCC or stay in the Ruthenian sui juris schema). The number of parishes is a more accurate gage. Not infallible, just more ascertainable.


Not really. Recognition from the other Orthodox Churches is not forthcoming to HB's rivals, and HB's parishes are only in a minority where your Major Archbishop has his parishes in a plurality/majority, the same places where the non-canonical Orthodox parishes draw their strength (a major selling point I understand being that according to the CCEO the use of the title "Patriarch" by the UGCC is uncanonical, a fact the UAOC/UOC-KP like to broadcast).

Have all the ones with the UGCC been resolved? How many are there?

I don't quite recall that. Most news I've seen involving the UGCC has been musing about union of it with the UOC-KP.

The destruction of the UGCC in Poland and the Ruthenians/Lemko administration by the Warsaw-Vatican Concordant of 1925, and its conclusion 25 years later wasn't Moscow's issue. Moscow's issue was the destruction of the Orthodox Church in Poland. The later program, however, did not succeed: the Polish Orthodox Church not only did not disappear, but its percentage crept up in the population, it managed not only to preserve its Ukrainian and Belorus indentity but develop a Polish one as well, it received is autocephaly in the Church and its autonomy from the State, and now has 5-10x the number of Faithful than the UGCC and other "Greek Catholic" remnants in Poland.

As an aside, many question the actions of the Orthodox in West Ukraine in 1946. Poland's last official act in the area, days before the Nazi invasion and WWII, was to close the last Orthodox Church in Lutsk, the culmination of the new Polish Republic's declaration of state ownership of ALL Orthodox property in Poland, its classification of the Orthodox as Russified Poles (not even "schimstic" i.e. Orthodox, Ruthenians, Ukrainians and Belarus, its "Revindication Campaigns" which destroyed over half and turned over nearly all the rest to the LATIN ordinaries (the UGCC, by agreement with the Vatican, was restricted to Lviv/Galicia, and faired little better, and IIRC received NONE of the Orthodox properties, not even being to retain its own), etc. That wasn't 400 years ago in 1946, it wasn't even a decade, and had been going in the entire lifetimes of ALL the Orthodox in the newly recovered West Ukraine in 1946.

LOL. Are you defending the Union of Brest?

The so called "right to exist", every time I have seen it enployed for whatever cause, seems always to be nothing more than an insistent to cut off debate with "because I say so." I've never seen a cogent argument based on it. For instance, the Orthodox didn't cease to exist because the Polish king said they did in 1596, but it would be foolish for me to argue the existence and rights of the Orthodox in Poland Lithuania 1596-1632 on such a basis as their "right to exist."

They do say, often with lip service to "religious freedom."

You haven't (the use of the term "paradigm" makes your reference closer to reality IMHO) called "cujus regio, ejus religio" the prinicple of law involved in 1596, but I have seen it passionately argued that it was the law of the land in 1596, so if I may, I'd like to address it.

Besides being silly, never working nor applied consistently where and when it was held as a legal principle, it also was of no application at Brest. "Cujus regio, ejus religio" was only written into law of the so called Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (after the Peace of Augsburg in 1555), which contained no lands covered by the Articles of Brest nor the jurisdiction of the Metropolitanate of Kiev nor the Patriarchate of Moscow at the time. Not a small matter: the nation of Liechtenstein owes its existence to the distinction, as does the low church Protestant orientation of the Lutheran church of Germany, as well as the rise of Prussia and the unification of Germany. On top of that was the "Reservatum Ecclesiasticum", which excluded Prince-Bishops from playing the role of "cujus": if a bishop converted, a new one replaced him, and the old bishop did not get take the patrimony of the diocese with him. In this "CR,ER" was in perfect accord with the Orthodox interpretation of the canons of the Catholic Church. Eastern law, including the Ruski Pravda, never recognized CR,ER, despite all the talk of "Caesaropapism," as the Arian, Semi-Arian, anti-Chalcedonian, Monothelite, Iconoclast Emperors and the Emperors who submitted to the Vatican found to their sorrow. Neither Polish nor Lithuanian law recognized it either-the latter as shown by the fact that half the committee who wrote up its statute were Orthodox.

To be fair, it it not the only one: the UGCC has its agenda (the relocation to Kiev, the new cathedral and the promotion of the patriarchal title are not exactly very veiled) as does the Vatican (not always in sink with the UGCC's). The UOC-KP, UAOC, and the Phanar have theirs (oddly enough, I think the UAOC's agenda comes closest to the purity standard that seems to be at issue here).

The All Ukraine Sobor of 1918 is a case in point: all the parties involved at some level now were involved then. The UGCC primate Andrei Sheptytsky made it know, in response to trial ballons of naming him Patriarch of All Ukraine, that he would accept, but only if all parties agreed. IOW, he knew he did not have control of the Sobor. He had no such qualms when the Russian front collapsed and the Central Powers and then Poland took control, to announce the reconstitution of the Chelm eparchy etc. by his fiat. Warsaw and the Vatican, however, decided otherwise, and shut him in L'viv, or rather Lwow. If such an All Ukraine Sobor was covened, would his successor participate and abide by its decision. Or will he only participate if it rubber stamps his agenda? If Moscow agrees to grant autocephaly if the sobor decides to so declare, and the UOC-KP agree to acknowledge Met. Volodymyr if the sobor elects him, will the Vatican agree to not dispute the sobor's decision, and will the Major-Archbishop of the UGCC recognize the autocephalous head elected by such an All Ukraine Sobor even if it does not elect him, does not announce his election to/seek approval from the Vatican, and continues to commemorate the Orthodox primtes in the diptychs as the affirmation of Catholic unity? IOW, what if a "unity sobor" agrees on an Orthodox answer, without any reference to the Vatican? Or is a "unity sobor" limited to the options outlined by the CCEO?


It doesn't strike me as all that unpleasant, particularly as much more unpleasant options are out there and have been exercised, often on a grand scale.

Pecuniary. You mean money. No, not really. Given the nature of religious adherence/expression in the Ukraine today as I understand it, possession of parishes is more than just an issue of money. Case in point: Saint Sophia of Kiev remains in state government control because of the disputation over its ownership. It belongs to the UOC, but the UOC-KP and UOAC have claimed it, and in addition the UGCC has also, despite the fact that by no stretch of the imagination, unless Ukraine replaces its statute with the CCEO, can it have legal title. Its value transcends pecuniary concerns.

In a lesser manner, St. George in L'viv does too: the UGCC has legal title, but the UOC has the valid claim: its cathedral stood there 1240-1740, it held possession of it until 1700, the Brotherhood and the local bishops fought imposition of Brest from it, and, on the basis of this, it reclaimed it in 1946. Does it mean more to the UGCC as the center of the Union of Brest for centuries, although abandoned as such now, or to the UOC as the spot where its bishop was enthroned from the days of Kievan Rus' and as the center against the Union of Brest for the first century it was promulgated? Does either matter? In contrast, the UGCC has clear legal and moral tilte, as well as canonical, title to the Transfiguration of Christ in L'viv, the first property it recovered in 1989. Recent parishes of course belong to the UGCC, and then it is only a question of their presence, a question that doesn't have a pecuniary angle.

and what would you suggest, if the UOC/ROC are to pursue their goals?

I'm not sure the ROC is working to the detriment of many, in fact, it is working for the benefit of all, using its pecuniary resources to that end, but not all see that. It seems to depend on one's definition of "benefit."

I just have to ask, on both sides of this debate, what good does it really do to keep score cards like this? "You stole x parishes back in y year 400 years ago", "Yeah well, you stole x parishes from us in y year!" , etc etc etc. If anyone thinks anyone has clean hands in the history of Eastern Europe, then they are mistaken.

Did the UGCC take a few churches in the early 90s that it prolly shouldn't have? I imagine so. The problem here isn't that we sinned and took parishes that may not have belonged to us. The problem is that Moscow absolutely refuses to acknowledge that we have a right to exist now, in the secular state of modern Ukraine (and world wide for that matter). If Moscow would recognize that we exist, and sit down and talk with us, I imagine we could all come to an agreement about parishes etc. The problem is, they don't want to talk to us. They don't want to acknowledge we have a right to exist, and they don't want to admit that the false synod in 1946 was sinful. In this respect, I give Met. Voldomyr a lot of credit for sitting down with us and talking. Perhaps if Met. Hilarion and Patriarch Kiril would stop parroting the same tired line over and over, and just sit down and talk with us we could resolve our conflict like mature adults, rather then bicker like children.

Am I being unclear? Brest is irrelevant to the question. Do you have any idea how unsound it makes you look to bring up centuries-past situations as justification for current policies?

Another Review: Brest doesn't matter.

There are Ukrainian Catholics. You may not like this. That's irrelevant too.

But anyway, because you keep asking so nicely, yes, you bet I'm defending the Union of Brest.

And although I'm pretty sure you'll have stopped reading by now on account of your head exploding at that last sentence, I'll tell you why.

Mostly because it's not a bit of my business.

Somebody with the power and necessity of making the decision thought it was the best decision of the ones available, based on a myriad of factors that I haven't considered and with which I am not faced.

You may be of the mind that people are mainly victims of history. I'm not unsympathetic to that view, but I am unsympathetic to the view that some or another expert, historian, or politician is better equipped to live other people's lives than the people actually living them are. Evidently, some twenty generations have passed and have not, in the main, seen fit to break communion with Rome.

See, so there are Ukrainian Catholics. You don't have to like how they got here, or that they got here, or that they didn't all die or assimilate. All of that isn't the point either.

Either you are arguing that they have no business being or owning property, or you are going to have to deal with them as a legitimate group.

Excellent post GMmcnabb.

After the fall of Communism the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church proposed mutual forgiveness from both sides. To quote from Metropolitan Kallistos’ (Ware) book The Orthodox Church


When will Russia seek mutual forgiveness for what Metropolitan Kallistos calls "the darkest chapter in the story of the Moscow Patriarch’s collusion with Communism"?-pg 165 of the Orthodox Church.

Over 400 years, not 400 years ago. 400 years (actually more) of just decreeing that they're over, stealing their property, killing their leadership, and then when they were caught, crying that things aren't going their way. They are crying now.

Perhaps I was unclear: in 1946, ALL Orthodox in what is now West Ukraine had known persecusion and suppression all their lives. Not most. Not the majority. EVERY SINGLE LAST ONE. And not for most of their lives, but the ENTIRE LENGTH of their lives to that point. Not centuries past, but the very present. You seem to either think 1946 happened in an utter vacuum, or that the Orthodox, particularly the Russian Orthodox, can't help themselves.

Another Review: Brest very much matters. That why they celebrated its jubilee.

Whether I like them, or don't is irrelevant. Yet you continue to focus on my feelings, whatever they may be. I'd like to have a united, canonical, autocephalous Patriarchate of All Ukraine, but what I like or want is irrelevant as to what the situation actually is.


Now, see, that wasn't so hard to admit, was it? Now you just need to work out the implications.


Oh no. My head doesn't explode at practically anything I see.


?

Somebody with the power and necessity of making the decision thought it was the worse decision of the ones avaible (well, maybe not the worse, but in any case bad and untenable), based on a myriad of factors that I (and more importantly, they) considered with which they faced (while I have faced different, but similar, problems).


Don't know what gave you that idea. I'm an existentialist, so no.


You seem to be quite willing to live the lives of the generation of '46.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."


The majority of Ruthenians did, as did many of the Ukrainians. Before 1946, and when they were not free to do so.

You speak as if for twenty generations they were free to go. They were not in the main. The founder of my first parish, when he went to his bishop to get his credentials to come to the US in the last decade of Austria-Hungary was told by his bishop to "go to the Russian bishop in America, not the 'katolik' bishop. Here we have to be 'katolik'. In America, you do not." (Ea Semper had already been issued, but not yet Cur Data Fuerit). The Maramorosh-Sighet trials found that they were not free to go. And then there is Talerhof. I was just reading an account of the "Revindication Campaigns" in interwar Poland, the campaign to "reclaim" the eparchy of Chelm (for the Latin church: althought the UGCC primate declared the eparchy reconstituted, the Vatican told him no, and not a single parish was given to him, only to the Latin ordinaries): one of the Polish (or Ukrainian/Belarus: the account did not indicate the ethnicity) Orthodox, refering to the return of the diocese to Orthodoxy under Russian rule the century before, told the soldiers "we know that our grandfathers were brought to it [Orthodoxy] by the cudgel and knott, but by God, we will die in it." And die many did.

And I've only mentioned a few things in the last century. The three centuries leading up to it, there was much more. But I focus only on what was the living experience of every Orthodox in West Ukraine in '46, the ones that you seem to think that some or another expert, historian, or politician is better equipped to live their lives than those people actually living them were/are.


For not being the point, you point it out enough. You've brought it up. Not I.

And just what do you think that "deal[ing] with them as a legitimate group" entails?