This very interesting criticism by a Roman Catholic priest of Muscovy's Patriarch very much reflects Fr. Taft's 'hellish' comments of several months ago:

http://www.risu.org.ua/library/doc/MP_canter.pdf

I.F.

PS: I thought it was interesting that this document has been issued in PDF format (you can't copy or modify) to ensure that it could not be modfied without permission.

I wonder if Father Buciora said a little prayer to St. Fyodor Ushakov before writing his article. The potential impact of his research appears to be the equivalent of a nuclear bomb landing squarely on the political intrigues and aspirations of the MP in Ukraine!

Way to go, Padre!

Gordo, who is wearing shades to protect his eyes from the flash

Thank you Jean Francois, Very interesting indeed!

Unbelievable!. There is a canonical Orthodox Church already present in the Ukraine, and any interference from Constantinople to expand her temporal power by supporting the uncanonical Ukrainian churches, is just that, political muscle flexing, contrary to canon law. While I agree that autochephaly must eventually come to the Ukraine, and elsewhere, for that matter, it must come about by canonical means, not by political intriques. Constantinople reaches too far, and risks loosing her fingers!

Alexandr

Does Fr. Buciora actually exist? Does anyone know him, or know of him?

Yep, he exists, at least according to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada.

http://www.uocc.ca/parishes-c.html

Dave

Dear Aleksandr,

I am all for following the canons, as are most people.

OTOH I feel certain Orthodox are all too happy to play fast and loose with the canons as they see fit.

Political intrigues? How was the Church of Russia raised to a patriarchate? What happened when the Russian Empire expanded into area that already had Orthodox Churches, such as Georgia?

The current 'status' of the canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine is anything but. The Holy Synod granted the Church in Ukraine 'autonomy in its internal affairs'. Such psuedo-autocephaly cannot be found elsewhere, neither in theory (read: canons) nor practice. This means that in the eyes of Orthodoxy the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church" is nothing more than an internal administrative unit of the Russian Orthodox Church. So much for sticking to the canons.

How about the granting by Moscow of the Tomos of Autocephaly to it's churches in North America? Again, canons not followed.

Do we need to comment on the close ties between the ROC and the Russian civil authorities?

I grow weary of "canons" being waved in people's faces only when it is convenient for those doing the waving. From my readings, I think we'd be lucky to find canons adhered to in such circumstances at least half the time. I realise it is difficult to legislate for every eventuality and rules are sometimes bent slightly (or more so).

Constantinople has every right to be involved:
1) The absorption of the Metropolia of Kyiv within the Russian Orthodox Church was not recognised by Constantinople, the Mother Church of the Kyiv Metropolia.
2) Constantinople is the Mother Church of both Kyiv and Moscow
3) Constantinople, as the First Among Equals, should take the lead is sorting out such disputes.

For all too long Constantinople has not dealt with the situation in Ukraine. I think it's about time the Phanar lived up to its responsibilities.

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

Yes, Father is the real thing.

Father Buciora is a respect priest in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada (a Canonical Church under the omophor of the EP) and is pastor of Pokrova Sobor in Winnipeg, Canada.

He is a regular columnist for the official paper of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada (the Herald).

He recently hosted a weekend with Kyriacos Markides on the topic of Orthodox Spirituality.

I believe that he is originally from Ukraine.


Herb

Dear Kobzar,

The Orthodox have played fast and loose with the canons throughout their history, as you point out.

But somehow the same privilege cannot be extended to the Ukrainians within their own canonical and national territory.

Please correct me - should not the Moscow Patriarchate have incurred excommunication for its role with the soviet government and especially in 1946 in western Ukraine?

Alex

Dear Alex,

One could always say that the MP didn't have much choice in the matter, and that is why the issue has never come up, AFAIK.

OTOH, there are other cases of naughtiness which have probably been glossed over on account of the Golden Rule. (For those not in the know: He who has the gold makes the rules.) When was the last time Constantinople, or any other patriarchate, was strong enough to stand up to Moscow? Did the MP ever have to travel through foreign lands to solicit support (read: money)? One does not bite the hand that feeds.

When Moscow loses Ukraine it will eliminate Moscow's status as the lone Orthodox 'super-power'. This would be to the benefit of Orthodoxy world-wide (IMHO). I just wonder when the other patriarchates will see this and tell Moscow to behave for once.

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

What would happen if the UOC-KP, the UAOC, and the UGCC all got togethger in Kyiv, held a synod, and declared all MP churches, buildings, institutions, and monasteries illegal?

And then confiscated then in the fasion of the 1946 L'viv "Synod?" (with the intent of giving them to use for the united Kyivan Patriarchate).

UC:

"Uncivil" war!?

Amado

"This is Christine Alamanpour reporting live and ebmbedded in a park in Kyiv. The drama is tense as the ecclesiastical battle of Church properties and legality if being fought over the most intense game of chess. It seems this could last for days, but wait, and any minute now we are waiting for the Shock and Awe, the 'checkmate,' as it were.

Wolf, back to you."

I believe that question ought to be phrased "should not the Moscow Patriarch (along with some other hierarchs) have incurred excommunication ... "

Many,
Peter.

Dear Alex...

A quick read of this PDF seems to confirm some things I knew and some things I suspected and fills in many gaps.

It seems to me that this document 'tells it like it is' ... does that seem right to you? Shall I trust this writer?

I tend to think 'yes'. right?

-ray

I can't get the pdf to fully load!! Yes, I have the reader installed. If someone could help a brother out!

Dear Peter,

I don't know if a Patriarchate can be excommunicated or not - but those in the ROC who were personally involved in the 1946 sobor are long gone.

Ultimately, the question isn't whether the ROC had its hands tied and "had" to go along with the soviet power at the time.

It is really a question of why the ROC today appears to be justifying what happened in 1946, rather than condemning the events and feeling repentant over its inability to oppose the spirit of the world etc.

What intrigues me is that a Church like the RC Church, infallibility et al. can actually have a Pope who apologises and repents of past wrongs perpetrated by his own Churchmen, but an Orthodox Church, that prides itself on rejecting papal infallibility, appears unable to admit committing a sin in the past with respect to the UGCC.

Moreover, it continues to defend its actions and I've comments from individuals here defending the MP's actions.

Someone once wrote about the "ingratitude" of the Ukies toward the ROC who "nurtured" them when they didn't have their own church etc.

That statement stuck in my craw like an underdone piece of meat!

But I guess a lot of things will be swept under the carpet for the sake of ecumenism.

But let's see some tangible results from all the sweeping people!

Prostrating before you deeply,

Alex