www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Questions about the Treaty of Brest

And, I might add that the scholarly analysis has little to do with a 19th or early 20th century Gallician or Ruthenian peasants use of the term or how they and their children would have understood the term. One has to be careful as Isa's scenario is misused and incorporated in their polemics by Russophiles to this day who deny the existence of a Ukrainian identity.

I know Isa is NOT among those folks so please don't dump on him for that. Thanks!

Dear DMD,

Yes, I find Isa's approach to be very scholarly and thorough. I don't know why there are some who want to "dump" on him as there is clearly no good reason for that.

Cheers,

Alex

Just speaking for myself, I have no wish to "dump" on him for his scholarship or thoroughness.

Actually, I'm pretty selective about what I dump on Isa for. [Linked Image]

Dear Peter,

I wasn't referring to you, Big Guy!!

Although if I ever had to come up against you and Isa, I would find myself between a "Rock" and a hard place . . .

Alex

Oh, I have a whole array of sticks of scholarism for them. I just don't get to use that bag much here. One such staff of clear thinking: Article 8 of the Pereyaslav Articles, published at the press of the Kievan Caves and disseminated by order of the Russian representative, Prince Alexei Trubetskoy, clearly states: "the Metropolitan of Kiev and other clergy of Little Russia are to be under the jurisdiction of the Holy Patriarch of Moscow and of All Great, Little and White Russia, while the Holy Patriarch is not to interfere with their spiritual rights." Said hierarch held the title "Metropolitan of Kiev, Galicia and All Little Russia, exarch of the Holy See of Constantinople" at the time, and later had ex officio a seat with his peers, the Metropolitans of Moscow and St. Petersburg, and the Exarch of Georgia (in loco Catholici).
Then there is that little problem that the Russian Orthodox Church adopted the Kievan/Little Russian/Ukrainian recension of Church Slavonic, and not the other way around.
(btw, the Trubetskoys were Ruthenians of Lithuanian origin, Gediminds like the Jagiellons of Poland. Unlike the later, however, when forced to choose between their patrimony and Holy Orthodoxy, they chose the latter, and moved to Moscow. Prince Alexei had the satisfaction of conquering his patrimony, the former Principality of Trubetsk, for the Czar.)
спасибо

Dear Isa,

The fact that such was written in the Pereyaslavl Articles does not mean that it was implemented or that that was how things were conducted.

Yes, the Kyivan recension of Slavonic was to be used in the Russian Orthodox Church. In the 18th century, the majority of bishops in the ROC were ethnic Ukrainians - they could not do otherwise.

The rights indicated for the Metropolitan of Kiev/Kyiv in the Treaty of Pereyaslavl do not take away from the situation of bringing that Church under direct subservience to the Patriarch of Moscow and the Ukrainian people under a similar subserviece to Russia. The same can be said for Ukraine's relationship under the Polish King. Whatever "facts" the Treaty of Pereyaslavl (or the Union of Brest) make explicit are not indicative of some sort of harmonious relationship struck between an imperial power and its new vassal.

Again, you are entitled to feel otherwise. But please, "facts" do not indicate their interpretative frameworks. You and I do. And we don't agree.ss

Another time, we could talk about the historical meaning of "fact."

Facts are actually recorded events or things but to which are tied more than one meaning. We cannot point to a "fact" and then imply that the meaning we give to it is the only one that it indicates.

For another time.

Alex

The Ukrainians and Ukrainianophiles don't need to be reminded of the above facts. The point is that Russian chauvinists (that DMD mentioned) cannot deny them-after all, they claim Ukraine on the basis of the Pereyaslav Articles as Trubetskoy wrote them up.

^I have had an intellectual problem with Orthodoxy's fixation with whose "territory" belongs to whoever using realities which no longer are real. It is difficult to reconcile the fierce possessive behavior of some national churches whose nation hardly reflects modern reality. Russia is not the only case in point. On the one hand we tout our national/imperial model of eccesiological organization yet when it is convenient we condemn phyletism. We condemn supremacy and universal jurisdiction while at the same time elements of both are exhibited by Moscow and Constantinople.

We have to come to grips with the 19th century. By that I mean the rise of the modern nation state, the rejection of monarchies, the concomitant rise of nationalism and immigration patterns. Until we do that we can't even get to the 20th or 21st century issues.

Regarding Russia and Ukraine, imagine that it is as if England never accepted the diplomatic separation of the USA or Canada. At least the COE accepted the existence and legitimacy of the Episcopal Church USA after our revolution.

Jurisdictional issues abound within Orthodoxy in the mid-east,western Europe, the Balkans and Americas.

We need to bite the bullet and have our oft delayed Great Council.

Dear Isa,

I understand why you say. It is just that the treaty articles were never respected by Russia. The treaty never intended for Ukraine to become an integral part of Russian territory or that its people become Russified. Again, "facts" as such where an observable event points to an inevitable, singular conclusion do not exist. Their interpretations and how they are understood in the real world constitute a part of their meaning.

Cheers,

Alex

Dear DMD,

I agree and commend your articulation.

Alex

Not entirely exactly: they PECUSA could not get a bishop from Canterbury, as they required an oath of loyalty to the King. So they got their orders from the Non-Juror Church of Scotland, which was in schism (and, btw, had tried to unite to the Orthodox Church earlier in the century). John Jay, who signed the Treaty of Paris (and US independence) for the US and served as Chief Justice later, had a hand in getting London to change its law/canon, which was the start of the Anglican communion.

And Her Majesty is still the sovereign of Canada.

Timeline, just for the heck of it.

USA:

July 1776 Declaration of Independence
Oct. 1781 Cornwallis surrenders at Yorktown
Sept 1783 Treaty of Paris
1786 British remove Oath of Supremacy from institution of COE and ordain bishops for the now independent American Church.

Ukraine:

Aug. 1991 Declaration of of Ukraine's Independence
Dec. 1991 Russian Federation recognizes Ukrainian independence
Never.(at least not yet, twenty two years later) Autocecpalous Canonical Orthodox Church of Ukraine recognized by Russian Orthodox Church.

Who will be the Ukrainian John Jay?

And +Kyril, Patriarch of Moscow remains "Святейший Патриарх Московский и всея Руси" and as such, he is Primate of of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox.

It's 2013, not 1580.

She is the Sovereign Constitutional Monarch of Canada which is different from the autocratic rule of the Russian Tsars (or the later Russian Bolshevik rulers).

Canada has evolved into an independent country with a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church are not in favour of any of that when it comes to their former vassal states.

Russian Orthodoxy truly was and is a tool of the Russian state, whether Tsarist, Bolshevist or in its current "gangster capitalist" formation.

Alex

And ya'll did so well under Poland.

Metropolitan St. Peter Movila.

The colonies and England shared only 169 years together, 201 years if you push it. What would be Ukraine and what would be Russia shared their early history over twice as long.

And +Kyril, Patriarch of Moscow remains "Святейший Патриарх Московский и всея Руси" and as such, he is Primate of of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox.

It's 2013, not 1580. [/quote]
And?