www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Comparing and Contrasting EOC and UGCC

Greetings, all! I previously started a thread 3 years ago similar to this topic that kind of deteriorated into a series of personal attacks between 2 users here - and on the very first page, no less.

I have no intention of this repeating. I am simply living in Lvov, Ukraine now and with the presence of several historical Ukrainian Greek Catholic Churches and Cathedrals, I would like to find out more of the differences with Eastern Orthodox beliefs, practises, etc. I work with many people who attend the UGCC and several of my students and friends are also attendees.

My main questions are, what's different, and what's similar? However, I also have some more specific questions regarding what is different and similar, so, here are my questions:

1. Does the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) add the "Filioque" (or "and the Son") in the Nicene Creed as is done in the Roman Western rites?

2. How does the UGCC explain the Trinity? Is it the same as in the Eastern Orthodox Church - namely that it is (as I've been taught):

instead of:

3. How do modern Orthodox Christians who have converted to Eastern Catholicism justify communion with the pope in Rome? Please keep this part of the discussion especially civil - if you can provide your own personal examples or of others here or off-site, I would be more than happy to read about this. This isn't for a debate; only to learn.

4. The liturgical services seem very similar - although somewhat abbreviated, and some of them have a more obvious Latin influence in their music (i.e. Holy Transfiguration Cathedral in Lvov). Is this one of the main differences liturgically, or have there been additions as well?

5. Lastly, if anyone lives or has lived in Lvov or has had some experience with the clergy here, I would be interested if any of the priests here speak English and might be available to answer some of my more deeper questions concerning theology, Church canons, and, of course, daily living. PMs are welcome.

This will suffice for now. Provided the discussion remains civil and personal cheap shots are avoided, I may ask more questions in the future on this thread or in another.

1) There is a movement to remove the filioque in the UGCC, though you will still find it in some parishes. Unfortunately it is still present in the Creed included in the UGCC Catechism, though in ().
2) I'll leave that to the theologians.
3) n/a
4) There are two streams of differences, IMO.
a) Abbreviations in the Divine Liturgy There are some 'standard' omissions (blame Zamość?). You'll find variation among parishes, from those who use all suggested omissions through to those who did it all by the book. Do keep in mind you'll find shortcuts in many Orthodox parishes. In my experience, the GreekOC is worse than the UGCC! Even the ROC will employ shortcuts - I have yet to hear the Psalm verses used during the Alleluia. There are differences in other services as well.
b) Local Custom Each Church has its own way of doing things. Most Orthodox in Ukraine will be following Nikonian (Muscovite) custom, while there are some restoring Kyivan custom. The UGCC tends to follow Kyivan custom, though there have been changes (not all good, IMO) leading to Galician custom. Even this can vary regionally and from parish to parish.
5) Try Sts. Peter & Paul (Garrison Church). IIRC during the 2012 Euros Liturgies were served there in multiple languages to cater to visitors. You will find English speakers at UCU.

Please note the Ukrainian name for the city you are in is Львів, transliterated L'viv; L'vov is the Russian version. Unless you happen to be working in Russian, some people may not take kindly to having their city referred to with a foreign name.

Thank you very much. This is all most helpful.

One more question: What is the difference between the Moscovite and Kyivian customs? Is it just a difference with language or something else?

The Muscovite customs we see today are largely a result of an unfortunate move in the 17th century to bring Russian practice into line with the Greek practice at the time, under the assumption that Greek = more ancient. On the other hand, the UGCC practice has some continuity with the old Kyivan practice, but has also been warped by Latinization and the imposition of Latin dogmas.

Dear Swan,

Actually, the Russian tradition has its own character that the Greek traditions did not Hellenize nor abrogate - I think that is more than clear.

As for the UGCC, the Church I belong to, the Kyivan tradition is much better reflected in it than in any of the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches today, canonical or otherwise.

That the UGCC does not reflect much of the Russian traditions, despite heavy Russification in previous decades, is truly a blessing.

As for Latinization, it is really is a fond Orthodox polemic to speak of such being "imposed" from without on the UGCC etc.

In fact, much of the Latinization the UGCC has today came directly to it from . . . the Kyivan Orthodox Metropolia of the Baroque era including the Immaculate Conception brotherhoods (Florovsky commented on this), the emphasis on the procession of the Holy Spirit "Through the Son" as being equal to the Latin "Filioque," Purgatory (St Peter Mohyla's originall Confession of the Orthodox Catholic Faith - my favourite catechism! ) and any number of Western devotions that were received and augmented by St Dmitri of Rostov and others of that era (i.e. the Passia - a great favourite among Russians today, the Rosary - St Seraphim of Sarov's favourite and others).

Even one of the most famous icons of Soviet and post-Soviet Russia, the "Joy of all Joys" is not an icon at all, but an Italian painting that was enthusiastically received by . . . Orthodox Russia and St Seraphim of Sarov.

Latinization has been embraced by Russian Orthodoxy - and it has become stronger and more resilient for having done so.

The UGCC, in a number of ways, is less Latinized than even some quarters of Russian Orthodoxy or else our "Orthodox in communion in Rome" folks keep a nasty squint on such practices.

Don't see anything wrong with them. If they're OK with the very traditionalist Russians, they're OK by me.

In addition, there is a wide range of liturgical practice in the UGCC itself which can vary from parish to parish. The same can be said of Orthodox parishes.

The old canard of anti-Uniate polemics issued by traditionalist Orthodox is blissfully ignorant of much of this while, at the same time, remaining willfully blind to the Latinization on its own doorsteps.

Again, I don't see Latin practices as being "bad." In many ways, they were historically inevitable.

Alex

Many Muscovite customs were adopted from the Kyivan tradition only because so many bishops for Russia were chosen from among the Ukrainian/Ruthenian candidate pool in Kyiv.

Kyiv was a centre of theological and other learning via the Orthodox Kyivan Mohyla Institute and the Pechersk Lavra. Tsarist Russia, when it took control of the Kyivan Metropolia, loved to send Kyiv's Orthodox scholars and bishops to its own institutes and also to Siberia to Christianize the peoples there.

In the 18th century, the Russian bishopric was almost entirely Ukrainian - the so-called "Ukrainian Mafia" which controlled who was appointed where as a bishop of the ROC.

Kyiv was very open to Western religious influences, Moscow less so and only insofar as an influence through Kyiv.

Peter I wanted to open Russia to even more Western influence and bring it into contemporary lines. The Russian Baroque era began under him.

There were and are other differences in terms of traditions e.g. the old practice of reading the Gospel facing the iconostasis versus reading it to the people (Kyivan practice).

The Kyivan tradition imparted to Russia other traditions such as the kissing of the edge of the Communion Chalice following Holy Communion, the touching of the foreheads of those who had communicated in Church with the Chalice, the hanging of miraculous icons on ropes/chains above the Royal Doors and then letting them down for the veneration of the people.

Artistically, of course, there was a great difference between the Russian and the Ruthenian/Ukrainian styles of church architecture and iconography.

The Georgian Orthodox Church and people have always complained of the Russification of their tradition by Russia in that regard as well.

But in essence the Kyivan tradition never feared Western influence - something that wasn't true of Russia until forward-looking leaders forced it to.

Alex

Thank you, Alex. This is quite interesting and enlightening.