www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News UGCC transfer to Kyiv affirmed

It is curious that simply returning to the city where the document of Union was legally executed is "sticking it" to anyone. It simply seems the logical thing to do.

It also seems we are never to properly emerge from 70 years of genocide, either, except as a ghetto church in the minds of some. Mormons, Evangelicals, and Lutherans have their center in Kyiv for the entire country. But we are different, even though this is the historic city that our union with Rome took place in.

The UOC-KP and the UAOC seem to have no problems with this move.

And the Russians don't know how to use a stick?

Dear Joe T:

Probably not!

They have been used to using daggers!

Amado

So here�s the crux of the situation. You are in effect saying the existing Metropolitan of Kiev is actually not a Metropolitan, but a pretender. That�s sounds a lot like the situation before the Union of Brest when the Catholic Church viewed all Orthodox bishops simply as schismatics. That�s why they had no qualms at the time about setting up a parallel patriarchate to the existing Orthodox one and bringing in the faithful of that church, they didn�t think the existing Metropolitan was valid. The �new� united Patriarchate I would assume would need to be one in communion with Rome unlike the old invalid one. The title is also not simply Metropolitan of Kiev and Halych, but all of Rus.

The problem then, is this sounds a lot like the old model of unity, which Rome has said it has disavowed itself of. That is the tightrope it has been walking in this whole issue.

This whole line of reasoning about the need to create a new Patriarchate is most definitely in part to spite the Russians.

Andrew

Dear Andrew,

Prescinding from spelling and syntax, I still don't quite grasp your point. At the present juncture in the Church's history, for better or worse, it is entirely possible to have two Metropolitans in one city (as in Philadelphia, USA). It is even possible to have three Patriarchs in one city (Antioch), and all of them in full communion with each other (the same city has another three Patriarchs, no one of whom is in communion with either of the other two).

So the recognition of a Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Patriarch / Major Archbishop in and of Kyiv need not be construed as an attack on anyone else's position. Patriarch Philaret, Metropolitan Volodymyr, and whoever else there is can go right on doing whatever they are doing, undisturbed by the presence of Patriarch Lubomyr. The difference is that while Philaret seems to grasp that Patriarch Lubomyr's presence in the same city does not imply that he is trying to dethrone Philaret, Metropolitan Volodymyr at least gives the impression of believing that Patriarch Volodymyr is trying to expel Metropolitan Volodymyr by force.

In the midst of all this, we might note that the Patriarchate of Moscow seems to have no difficulty these days in addressing the Old Ritualist Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus' with precisely that title. If it works in Moscow, why should it not work in Kyiv?


Incognitus

Dear Andrew,

The personal opinions of some posters here are not to be taken as dogma decreed by the UGCC. Patriarch Lubomyr has, in more than one speech/interview, stated that there are now (sadly) four legitimate successors to the Church of Kyiv: UGCC, UOC-MP, UOC-KP, and UAOC. The process of merging the latter two is well underway.

I will try to find links to Patriarch Lubomyr's statements in English for you.

Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον η�άς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!

I don't think that this move of the primatial seat of the UGCC is meant to "stick it to the Russians."

As I posted before on a thread I started to try to learn and understand the problems in Ukraine,
____________________________________________
. . . both (the UGCC and the MP) spring from the same common source--the Kyvan Church and the Baptism of Rus. Once the Metropolitan of that city went back into communion with the See of Rome and became the UGCC. This Church (the UGCC) has a valid and legitimate historical claim to being the successor to that historic Kyvan Church. The MP claim is that the Metropolitan moved his see to Muscovy, but retained the title and historic claim. This last is their historic claim.

And the hard fact is that both claims are true and valid, though springing from different points on the time line of history.
___________________________________________

And, thanks to the many posters here, I've had confirmed some conclusions I have made over the years about people in general:

1. If you get two people together to discuss a problem, you will get three opinions about how to solve the problem.
2. Even people who start from the same set of assumptions will differ as to where the assumptions take them.

Actually there are three metropolitans of Kyiv, not counting the UOC-KP and the UAOC. There is His Beatitude Lubomyr, continuing in the succession from the metropolitan who signed the Union of Brest. There is His Holiness, Alexy II, who traces his patriarchate's history from a move in history of the metropolitan of Kyiv to Muscovy. And then there is the metropolitan who stayed in the city to shepherd the flock that continued to live there.

As I said before, the tides of history and political empires have rolled back and forth over the land and influenced some of the shifts. It seems to me that we've got a handful of legitimate heirs who can claim to be successors to the time when there was only one metropolitan in Kyiv.

I also want to point out to my younger brethren that THE TIME IS OVER for any of us to point to another bishop in an Apostolic Church and call him illegitimate. Certainly the Catholic Church has made this clear to those of us in her fold over 40 years ago. Taking my point of origin from the Vatican Council, I believe that each of us owes every bishop, Catholic, Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox, the same degree of respect that we give to one of our own. BECAUSE AS WE COME TO UNDERSTAND THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH AND THE SUBLIME MYSTERY OF THE EUCHARIST, WE HAVE TO COME TO UNDERSTAND THAT AT SOME LEVEL EACH OF "THEM" IS ONE OF "US."

My own conclusion about the current situation in Ukraine is that it is extremely complex, has as many opinions about what it is currently as there are faithful in that country and here, and will have as many suggestions about resolving the complexity of it all.

Tell you what, I'll sit over here in the corner and pray that the Holy Spirit will take over the job of unraveling this situation. And I'll continue to pray that we all remember THAT WE ARE BROTHERS before, during, and after this unraveling process. Let no one become so angry with another over this that his soul is prey for our common Enemy.

In Christ,

BOB

P.S.: I think the time has come to see two bishops in the same city and think of the awful tragedy of the fact that we have broken the Savior's Heart by our own sin. The Church is His Bride, close to His Heart. When She is broken, He is saddened.

That is why I said in my last post that those opinions are mine and not of the UGCC.

So Kobzar, I think Andrew was responding to my personal views.

-uc

What we all should be combating is the growing loss of Eastern Christians in Ukraine to the Evangelical and Mormon churches.

But that is a whole more complex issue.

-uc

Diak

The problem is Rome itself has said the model of unity represented by the document was wrong. They were at the time quite intentionally sticking it to the Orthodox by pressing ahead with the union. That is why Rome was been walking a tightrope and attempting to mollify both sides. Though returning to Kiev may certainly be historically justified, it raises questions about whether it�s the best thing to do in relation to general East/West relations. A non Orthodox source (to try and prove a little at least that these aren�t just my personal ravings), 30 Days, in this article [30giorni.it] said the following about the complicated nature of being �sister churches�:

On this subject one can rightly consider that the recognition of the Orthodox Churches as �sister Churches�, could lead to the renouncing of the claim to the patriarchal title by the Greek-Catholic Church. It is a title which would have an essentially honorific meaning to it, but it is full of conflictual consequences for relations with the Orthodox Churches. If the Ukraine Greek-Catholic Church intends to fulfil a role of ecumenical mediation, as its authoritative representatives often claim, the renunciation of this request seems necessary

That is why this is not just an issue of simple logic.

The Mormons and Evangelicals represent a real threat to both Catholics and Orthodox, and their presence there does disturb me. They represent a different issue however.

True, but certainly it also must be acknowledged that they have their own agendas.


Incognitus

Sorry, I wrote my last post pretty quickly.

My post was really geared towards the view that the current Metropolitan does not possess legitimacy. I recognize that currently one geographic area can be administered by multiple hierarchs.

Volodymyr I believe is overreacting and the shrill news bits coming out of Interfax are unseemly. That doesn�t mean, as the 30 days article highlights, that there aren�t legitimate concerns though about what is taking place. I don�t know enough about Philaret to comment, though what I hear about him is not at all positive. He may very well believe anybody who is against his foe is for him.

That�s a good point.

Kobzar

Thank you, that is good to know.

Andrew

The document of "Union" was legally (but not canonically) executed in Brest, in Belarus. 579 km away from Kiev. Almost the distance (859 km) from Kiev to Moscow (certainly shorter than the distance from Kiev to Rome, where, in the Vatican's Hall of Constantine, it was proclaimed). The deposed Met. Michael Ragoza lived in Vilnius (Lithuania) and . Kiev resisted the scheme and in 1620 received its canonical (but not legal) Metropolitan Job Boretsky, but did not recover as a see (since the sack by the Mongols) until Met. St. Peter Movila/Mohyla restored it as the legal and canonical Metropolitan of Kiev in 1633.

It was the Vatican, not the Soviet Union, who insisted that Met. Andrej Sheptytsky, Major Archbishops Husar and Shevchuk's predecessor, had no jurisdiction in Kiev, or any jurisdiction whatsoever outside the "ghetto church" of Galicia.

Neither the UOC-KP nor the UAOC have much of a following in Kiev either, and are busy coveting West Ukraine. Birds of a feather and all that.

So no, your "document of Union" has no history in Kiev. The Patriarchate of Moscow has, even long before the see of Kiev was translated there.

"70 years of genocide": at the greatest stretch of the imagination of that statement as usually promoted, 1946-1991, leaves 45 years unaccounted for.

But a good demonstration of the propaganda that the PoM is protesting, and which Met. Hilarion seems to be referring to recently
https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/392474/6/Russian_Orthodox_Metropolitan_
such non-facts contrary to fact "sticking it" to the PoM. A conclusion dictated by logic.

No body seems to have cared about this since 2005. I am pretty sure they haven't suddenly developed an interest.

Dear friend, what you say is without any historical perspective

At the time of the union of Brest 1595, there was one Nation, the "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" which included the today Ukraina (including Kiev), Belorus, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, portion of Romania and Hungary): the east part of this nation was of Byzantine Rite under the Ecumenical Patriarcate, with a See Kiev and already from 1458 Vilnius. Russia including Moscow was at the time a East barbarian nation.

Because the Ecumenical Patriarcate was under the complete control of the Ottoman sultan, and the Ottomans were invading all the Balkans, at the time of Brest the Byzantine Church of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth decide to move under the mantle of the Pope (Moscow was not a option, being as I said a far barbarian state at the time): From this fact you can learn that in case you would undo Brest, Ukraina would be under the EP, not under the MP.

In the 17th century Moscow became bigger and bigger strong and invaded (not alone) the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, succeeding to occupy and later russify both Belorus and East Ukraina (including Kiev): as ecclesiastic hierarchy, Moscow annexed Belorus under his direct control, while installed a puppet Metropolitan in Kiev under his control.

In 1807 the remaining old Ukrainan church, now in communion with Rome (the UGCC), was divided in two area: one with the see in Kiev covering all the faithfuls in East Ukraine and Belorus who endured under the Russian occupation, and one in Lviv (Galica), because such previous part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was now under Vienna.

The Kiev part of the UGCC was forcedly abolished (and the property confiscated: the remaining faithfuls lived undergound) by Moscow in 1838, while the Lviv part remained alive: Met. Andrej Sheptytsky, Major Archbishops Husar were the leaders of the Lviv part of the UGCC (that is the reason why the Vatican could have said that their jurisdiction was in Galicia.

In 2005 the UGCC decided to restore its unity as it was before 1807, so covering both the West part (Galicia) and the East part (Ucraina), i.e. the today jurisdiction of Patriarch Shevchuk covers the whole former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth