what's the deal with pews?

unfortunately the protestant/western pews have been in our churches so long that people would rather give up their iconostasis than their seat. I am very troubled because pews do not allow us to worship God the way our traditions prescribe. We can no longer make poklons without awkward shuffling out into the aisle and even then not everyone can be accomadated. I cannot even begin to comprehend how churches are able to conduct services properly. We choose to choke ourselves and in return some sunday morning comfort.

"ohh, the mass is sooo long"
"ohh, that's simply inhuman"

are some of the arguments you might come by.
Well, the Divine Liturgy is butchered in so many churches that it takes less than 1 hour. Now how long would you stand at a ticket booth to get free tickets to U2, Britney Spears, or Patriarch Alexei?

As for inhuman, how about boxing your children in a to a sound proof booth. Children should be allowed to experience the liturgy close up, see the icons, the vestments , the insence, the movement.
I could go on but I don't feel like it anymore.
Well it's all up to you now.

my church has no pews, DOES YOURS?

Ilya (Orthodoxy Rocks!)

Dear Ilya,

I am fortunate to attend a Syrian Orthodox church here in New York (the boogie down Bronx, baby! ) that was built from scratch, and so we were able to build it like an Indian church...without pews. Having experience with pews and no pews, I'd say that pews are definitely good for Roman churches, but for our Eastern Liturgies, no pews are ideal...I've seen SO churches with and without pews...I like no pews in our churches, myself.

Dear ilya goes to church:

Dam the Pews.

If I get you tickets to see the Patriarch of Moscow, can you get me tickets to see Britney Spears?

Woodworker indeed.


Sincerely
defreitas

Nice, defreitas, really nice...

+JMJ+

Pews are not ideal for Roman Parishes. Their are an import form the heresies of the Anababtist movement. Think about it, should we be sitting in the presence of the King of Kings? Kneeling should be continued, but kneeling is a penititential reverential practice. WE should knell ont he plain floor (whcih should also not be carpeted, it messes up the accoustics). When in attendence at Mass, I will often stand in the back and genuflect at the appropriate times and kneel at the appropriate times. This practice certainly adds to the beuty of the Mass.

My suggestion is to take the pews, put a few against the walls for those who cannot stand for the entire Mass, and sell the rest to Protestants. Use the money from this sale to work for the conversion of Protestants. Once all Protestants have converted, lets take the pews and use them for firewood.

Joe Zollars

LOL at Joe's post! Not only are pews unOrthodox, but so are organs. Our church was originally owned by Lutherans, and unfortunately, the pews and the organ are still in place. In recent months, our parish has been having a "traditionalist revival," and instead of hearing that screeching instrument of heresy, the liturgy is chanted as it should be and always has been! I was told the pews are soon to come out as well.

+AMDG+

It is the opposite here. We had the town parishes (we had three) all get into the charismatic renewal and start having tamborines and hooping and hollering at the Mass and now thanks to the "spirit of unity" we are down to one not so big parish instead of three burgening parishes.

Beleive it or not we actually sold one of the churches to the lutherans who have maintained several of the stuff that was there when it was Charismatic Catholic.

Protest pews. I just came up with a new use for the pews. Let's use them for the back of Icons.

As for chanted Masses, that is how it should be in the west as well. No instruments should be used. Our Priests, Deacons, and choirs should be taught the great beuty and reverence of Gregorian Chant. GC is the only form of music officially approved by Vatican II for use in the Latin Rite.

Ok Joe, climb down off the soapbox.

Joe

Joe,

How ironic, because St. Melany's down here in Tucson was formerly a Protestant church that was bought. It works out really well: a large social hall, a smaller side chapel (used for confessions and daily Divine Liturgy)in addition to sizable sanctuary; also the tower provides like 3 floors for religious ed.

Top 10 uses for pews currently in BC parishes:

10. Makes great firewood!
9. Backs for icons (already suggested)
8. Sell 'em and use the funds for evangelization (already suggested)
7. Bonfire
6. Long-lasting fuel for youth retreat campfires. I can already taste the smores!!!
5. Source of wood for iconostas
4. Source of wood for mulch
3. Source of wood for the parish termite colony
2. You know, if we took all these pews, we'd probably have enough wood to build a life-size replica of the Empire State Building out of toothpicks.
1. Everybody's favorite: BINGO!!!

Yours in the Theotokos,

Darrenn

I do think that the Organ has a place in the Roman Rites, however much its inappropiate for Byzantines. Byrd, Bach, Buxtehude-you can't get much better than that!

MK

Death to pews!
As smoke vanishes, so let them vanish!

Daniil

We donated our pews to a nice Protestant church that lost theirs in a flood. They were very happy. Good witness.

Now we have chairs on Sunday, but on Weekdays and during Lent we can scrap the chairs for prostrations.

anastasios

Dear Friends:

I have heard rumor that the rector of the Anglican Cathedral of St. James in Toronto wishes to remove the pews and replace them with chairs.

I wonder if he can convince them to do poklons as well.

Granted, its a little far fetched, but what does he have to loose a congregation?


I know, I know.

Sincerely
defreitas

[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: defreitas ]

Dear Friends,

St Nicholas Ukrainian Catholic Church in Toronto originally had pews and still does.

But when Fr. Lypsky had a lecture on the evils of pews, the teenagers in the crowd were so inspired that, following class, they brought hammers and screwdrivers to begin the process of "de-pewing" the Church . . .

Father could barely convince them to stop.

The reason why I think the pews remained is because the floor leans forward, like the leaning tower of Pisa, and without the pews, standing is very awkward.

Then again, one could adopt Ethiopian prayer sticks . . .

Alex

Yes, the slanting floor would be awkward, but it would make prostrations easier because you'd always be falling forward.

Bring out the tool box! Let's get to work!

Daniil

Dear Daniil,

As always, you've really "nailed" that one on the head . . .

I also think there is an "art" to standing that we need to be made more aware of.

Things like putting our feet "flat" on the floor, standing in a relaxed posture, wearing more loosely fitting clothing like an embroidered shirt and belt, and returning to the practice of making many Signs of the Cross, prostrations etc. that help get the blood flowing freely etc.

(I daresay that if your parish does any more "returning" to our ancient practices, we'll all be in trouble . . .).

Alex

I just have one commment.

What about those good people in our church who know nothing but pews in the church? Are we to throw them out with the pews?

David

Dear David,

I am for leaving them alone, letting them continue to sit in their own pew(s).

Sorry . . .

Alex

Alex,

My friend, no need to be sorry.

I just thought that what I said needed to be said. It seemed that this thread was getting the "I know better than you do" airs about it.

It is easy to say that we want to return to our Byzantine Traditions and to throw out everything that isn't. But we must remember that, for many, many, people the old way, with all of its unByzantine things, is all they know of the Byzantine Rite.

To throw it away without a concern for them is not correct. We must take our time and educate them as to what proper Byzantine Traditions are.

If we do not take them into account we will chase them off to the local Latin parish, or even to protestantism.

In Christ,
David

[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]

Dear David,

And how right you are!

One very Byzantine Priest, who was full of kiss and vinegar, went out to bring back our Latinized folk to the true traditions.

Two years later, however . . .

Two years later, he told me that there are certain devotions that are VERY important to our people and that it is best to leave them alone.

Sometimes it is good to just go with the flo', eh?

God bless you, my dear and wonderful Friend in Christ!

Alex

I agree with the desire to remove pews, having been working slowly with our priest here to do just that. But the problem is one of pastoral strategy: how to convince severely Latinized Byzantine Catholics to return to the pewless tradition? I have it on good authority, from a priest of eminent judgment, that removing pews in such a parish is a sure fire ticket out of there for the priest. Has anyone any suggestions for how to do it with a minimum of conflict?

Dear Adam:

You better have full, interactive, and flowing services so the people will not miss sitting down.

Better keep as many seats as you can for people with problems.

Place them along the walls and in discreet places.

If you are worried about the initial shock just keep rearranging the pews while lessening their quantities gradually.

No easy solutions.

Just my 2 cents.


defreitas

Very clever defreitas! That could work.
You can then sell them (as someone here mentioned their parish had done), or use the boards for icons or ecclesiastical furniture!
Daniil

hey everyone!
i am new to the forum but when i saw the pew issue come up, i knew i had to chime in. we just purchased a new building and our eparch said we should go withchairs on sides and have the main body open for us to stand. well he convinced the ukrainian part of our parish because it was true to our rite and its how they did it in the 'old country' but the anti-vatican II factions who can accept the fullness of our rite and traditions in the east got a nasty letter of complaints sent to the eparch. well we have pews now, but at least in our new temple we have a square holy table and no stations and only icons on the walls and not to mention a new kivot. we can't wait 'til we get our walls written with icons in the sanctuary. well with the great lent comming up, the menita's (sp?) are going to be a little tough but we'll manage.
-ukrainiancatholic

opps!
half way into my first post i meant to say..." who **can't** accept our traditions etc. etc."
sorry!
-ukrainiancatholic
p.s. are we the only eastern rite church that has these souls in our parish?

That's great ukrainiancatholic! Your eparch sounds like a smart guy. With Great Lent fast approaching, you'll be able to do poklony (prostrations) no sweat!

Daniil

daniil,
you are rights its poklony but isn't mentia or menita another word for the prostrations we do in the east? our eparch is a great guy but we are expecting a new one shortly. but the only thing is with the letter sent to him, he just said go with pews. in a way i dont blame him because why have a parish split over that.

ukrainiancatholic,

The word you're looking for is, in English, metany.

In Ukrainian, it's poklin.

(Those are singular. Plural is metanies / poklony .)

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: RichC ]

SLAVA ISUSU CHRISTU!
SLAVA NA VIKI!

Ukrainian Catholic wrote: "...are we the only eastern rite church that has these souls in our parish?..."

Unfortunately NOT! I'll have to share horror stories with you....

mark

SLAVA ISUSU CHRISTU!
SLAVA NA VIKI!

Ukrainian Catholic wrote: "...are we the only eastern rite church that has these souls in our parish?..."

Unfortunately NOT! I'll have to share horror stories with you....

mark

Claba Icycy Xpucmy!
We do need to share stories. I think we could write a book. If you take a good look at it, it can be actually pretty funny. When we came back from seeing the Pope in Ukraine, we got asked many questions because they found out the pope said 2 Roman Masses. I just kindly told them we only went to the Divine Liturgies and that we stood for 6 hours in mud and rain in L'viv without pews. I also informed them that in every single church we went to in Ukraine had a only few benches on the side that they elderly used, but in Baba's selo, her 85 year old brother stood for the 3 hour Sunday liturgy. Did anyone here see the pope in Ukraine? Seeing him sure changed my faith and I know gave a huge boost for our Martyr Church. Now lets wait for him to make our Patriarch a Patriarch hehehe.
-ukrainiancatholic

Dear UkrainianCatholic,

Yes, hehehe!

It won't happen, believe me - politics, politics, politics.

It is interesting to note that one of the aspects of the Anglican revival in the 19th century was a movement against the use of pews in Church.

John Mason Neale, someone who translated many Eastern Church services into English (e.g. the Akathist to the Passion of our Lord), also wrote a commentary against the use of pews as going against the practice of good religion.

Alex

Ye of little faith!

It will happen one day. All that we need is for our church to have another great Patriarch that will complete what His Beatitude Joseph I started.

I didn't get a chance to go to for the Papal visit (oh, how I wish I could have been there), but just seeing it on TV was so moving! It truly was a spectacular event which happened without incident. Maybe you should start a new thread and talk about the visit. I would be interested in hearing more about it.

Daniil

Daniil,
I think Patriarch Lubomyr will be really good(and is) . He is a family a friend. He used to be at St. Basil's in Stamford teaching there. My uncle was taught by him and my cousin who is also my late Godfather was rector of the seminary at St. Basil's for some 20 years and Fr. Husar was vice rector for a time. Going thru some of the old family year books, I found out that the clean shaven Fr. Husar taught Ukrainian and was moderator of the Byzantine club with one of the Galadza's as student president. I also saw Robert Moskal in the year books along with many other future priests. Baba always knew him as Fr. Lubko. Well I have heard from some people that he is one of the most repected and not to mention of the holiest cardinal's around. With our new sobor-cathedral being built in Kyiv is great because the he can be Patriarch of Kyiv and all Rus'-Ukraine.
-ukrainiancatholic

Hey,

I only saw him on EWTN and it increased my faith. It was soooooo awesome! I think feeling the faith and hunger of the people gathered there. Those that made great sacrifices to get there. It was neat!

Rose

Yes, he is also a family friend. I was on the "team" that had to travel with him around Galicia twice a week to do Hierarchical Liturgies. In fact, I accidentally pulled on his beard while vesting him once!

Now, with reagards to the new Sobor being built in Kiev: you are right that he will then be able to legitimately call himself Patriarch of Kiev and All Rus'-Ukraine, but the structure is hideous!!! What a shame! Now everyone in Ukraine wants to build modern, but all of their modern plans are ugly and fall apart faster than churches which have been standing for hundreds of years. I think we should start a petition here to have them reconsider the plans.

Daniil

+AMDG+

I greatly simpathize with the problem of hideously modern churches. I have heard rumors that they are going to wreckovate the Local Roman Rite parish (over 100 years old). Well if they do, I oiled my chaines last night. They should fit nicely around me and the altar rail. Hehehe.

Joe Zollars

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Maybe with removing pews one's parish should start by taking out the kneelers and then every other pew, making space to properly prostrate. Do this before the Great Lent and explain why, then slowly start taking more and more out.

IC XC NIKA,
-Nik!
Your Catholic Web Portal & Forum!

Dear Daniil,

It's "Kyiv" not "Kiev!"

Is Patriarch Lubomyr forcing the issue with his title right now? Or is he working on Rome to officially recognize it? Is there a difference in terms of emphasis with him?

Ultimately, it would be good for some sort of relationship to develop between the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Orthodox in Ukraine where an Orthodox Patriarchate could witness to a symbolic unity, if not a full one, between the churches.

The business of a cathedral in Kyiv so Patriarch Lubomyr could call himself "of Kyiv" sounds a bit triumphalistic - and unrealistic - to me.

Alex

Everybody calls him Patriarch. In Ukraine, it's not really an issue. However, I'm sure he would like to be recognized by Rome with that title.

The Church in Ukraine is in good standing with the Orthodox, especially with the Autocephalous and the KP. They are also friendly with the MP but mainly on a bishop to bishop level.

Having a Cathedral in Kyiv makes sense. His title still technically is "Metropolitan of Kyiv and Galicia", so it isn't as if he's trying to get something that's not his already. It also makes sense since it is the capital. If, in the 1800s, we were allowed to have the Metropolitan in Kyiv, we would have, but it wasn't allowed. You can say that he was in exile in Lviv.

Daniil

Dear Alex and Danill:

In regards to the title Patriarch, it's a moot point. Pius X gave Patriarchal powers to Metropolitan Andrei, Patriarch Joseph formaly used the title during his life, and the Ukrainian faithfull normaly use the title.

Considering Patriarch Lubomyr's personal history, I think that he is just patiently waiting for events to unfold.

It is my personal opinion, based on what I have heard from various sources, that everything has been decided upon and that Rome and Patriarch Lubomyr are just waiting for the right moment to formaly define the title.

Having a Cathedral in Kyiv is the Patriarch's right. Kyiv is his title and in his person he maintians true apostolic succession to the ancient metropolitanate.


defreitas

[ 02-25-2002: Message edited by: defreitas ]

Dear Daniil and defreitas,

I never said he shouldn't have a cathedral in Kyiv!

To argue that he should ONLY on the grounds that the Orthodox Metropolitan of Kyiv signed the union of Brest is, in my view, not a good argument given the conditions today where everyone seems to agree that the Unia was a Roman blunder.

The fact that Patriarch Slipyj used the title means, unfortunately, "squat."

He used the title often in direct disobedience to Pope Paul VI.

Also, the use of the title "Patriarch" in the Ukrainian Catholic Church is only general in those parishes which are of "Pro-Orthodox" orientation (as Reader Sergius would have said if he were still with us . . .).

Many, many parishes do not use "Patriarch" and that division in our Church still continues.

In addition, and as someone who worked in the Patriarchal movement for years before you were even born, Daniil , so what if Rome recognizes the title?

Does that mean we would have more autonomy? Could the Patriarch order married priest, canonize his own saints and otherwise exercise his authority in TRUE Eastern Orthodox fashion while in union with Rome?

Uh, no, really . . .

The fact is that Ukrainian parishes are of two minds - one type sees the Pope as its immediate Patriarch and the other sees Patriarch Lubomyr as such.

I don't know how this would change by Rome's approval of a title.

Right now, however, as we can see, Rome has its hands full in Moscow with the Orthodox.

Relations there have hit an all time low with demonstrations etc.

This isn't a real priority for Rome - it hasn't been and probably won't be, in all honesty.

Alex

What do you mean?!
If Rome recognizes the title, it may not immediately change the things you mentioned, but it would raise the status of our Church from one that is a pretender to the Patriarchate to an actual Patriarchate. It would look good. It would bring a bit more unity to our Church.

I hope you weren't involved in the "sacking" during the ordination of present Eparch of Stamford. I witnessed a sacking myself, and it's not very pleasant.

Daniil

[ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: Daniil ]

Dear Alex:

Formal recognition of the title of Patriarch by Rome would only be one part of the actual formality.

With any recognition there would also have to be a defintion of what the title actually means.

That could in itself be a major stumbling block.

As to actual use, as opposed to legal use of the nomenclature, in my oppinion each parish is open to interpret the issue as it sees fit.

I think that the Patriarch said as much a short time ago when commenting on the unofficial use of the title by the faithfull. He stated that he knew people used the title against his wishes, but that he would not force people to stop using the term.

With all things, patience is a virtue and time mends all.

May God Bless us.


defreitas

[ 02-26-2002: Message edited by: defreitas ]

Dear Daniil:

What exactly is a "sacking"?

Inquiring minds want to know.


defreitas

Dear Daniil and Jose,

First of all, the only "sacking" I've ever participated in had to do with a prank when I was a teenager.

The title of Patriarchate for Kyiv is something that will make a statement that Rome may or may not want to make.

Please remember that I worked in the Patriarchal movement before Daniil was born and when Jose was still young too .

If we look at this from the ecclesial perspective only, well, then yes what's the problem?

From other ecumenical and political perspectives, the problem is great.

Moscow has always claimed to be the true heir of the St Andrew and St Volodymyr traditions of Kyiv.

The Metropolitans of Kyiv moved northwards to protect themselves against foreign attack and eventually Moscow took over the position of the Kyivan primacy and developed its notion of being a "Third Rome."

The Ukrainian Catholic Church under Patriarch Josef Slipyj affirmed not its "right" to the title, but the actuality of its status as a Patriarchate EVEN WITHOUT ROME'S APPROVAL.

Patriarch Slipyj received the title and declared it to be valid. He only sought Rome's official approval of it, not Rome's granting of it.

This must be understood at the outset. The approach of Patriarch Lubomyr is similar, although he wants Rome to officially recognize the title before formally using it himself.

But to affirm this title is to affirm the right of Kyiv, not Moscow, to the St Andrew tradition.

The Pope has said that other Churches can share in the St Andrew/St Volodymyr tradition of Kyivan Christianity.

But that won't wash with Moscow, who sees the "Kyivan Churches" (Catholic and Orthodox) as belonging to its jurisdiction, although they are in rebellion.

Rome is already in deep trouble with Moscow and needs to find a way out. Proclaiming the Kyivan Patriarchate for Ukrainian Catholics may not be high on their priority list right now - that's all I'm saying.

In addition, a Catholic Patriarch who is dependent on Rome is really not the same as an Orthodox Patriarch in terms of rights and powers.

That is the reality, my friends.

Certainly, we can have a feisty Patriarch like His Holiness Patriarch Lubomyr.

But his hands will be tied by Rome and his efforts to free himself and his Church will cause friction and conflict - inevitably.

The theological and ecclesiological sides to this story are important.

But they don't write the whole book.

Alex

Dear Alex:

I agree with you on all the points you make, it is a difficult situation in every way.

But as to the requisition of the St. Andrew tradition by Moscow, I wonder how they themselves define it's meaning.

Recently I borrowed a video of the election and consecration of the late Patriarch Pimen of Moscow from our friend "Ilya goes to Church".

In the video, toward the end of the service, the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg [then leningrad] was called to present the staff to the Patriarch, and the Metropolitan of Kyiv was called "as the head of the oldest Metropolitanate" to present the Koukoulion.

If the Metropolitan of Kyiv presents the Patriarch's headpiece isn't that a recognition of the importance of elder Kyivan tradition?


defreitas

[ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: defreitas ]

Dear Jose,

Yes, I have the same video and it is very true that the Metropolitan of Kyiv does present the sign of patriarchal authority to Moscow.

But this doesn't mean that Kyiv as such, in the eyes of Moscow, is the "eldest Church."

It is, in fact, the "eldest Church" whose ecclesial rights and privileges have passed onto Moscow and therein lies the difference.

This is because the Kyivan Metropolitan (in union with Moscow) has always been considered an "Exarch" of the Moscow Patriarchate, directly under the Patriarch, which position Moscow usurped, or so we Ukrainians and our allies believe.

So the Exarch/Metropolitan of "Kiev" represents geography while the Patriarch of Moscow represents the actual holder of the rights and privileges of the ancient Kyivan See from St Andrew/St Volodymyr.

Again, without a connection to an Apostle, the Patriarchate of Moscow would not exist. And it is adamant that only ONE such Patriarchate based on the St Andrew Tradition can exist - itself.

The fact that the new Metropolitan of "Kiev" has been declared autocephalous by Moscow doesn't change Sabodan's essential position of direct subservience to Moscow, a situation that does not obtain in other Metropolias under Moscow (who are Russian in any event).

Moscow sees Kyiv and Ukraine as its ecclesial backyard, including the Ukrainian Catholics who, the MP believes, belong by right to it as Orthodox "forcibly out of communion with" Orthodoxy (read "Moscow").

Sorry if this sounds harsh. But there are too many stripes between Kyiv and Moscow on this and other matters, mainly on the backs of Ukrainians - and others.

The Georgian Orthodox Church not too long ago canonized St Elia Chavchavadze, its national poet and great Orthodox Christian who promoted separation from Russia, nationally and ecclesially, and was martyred by the Tsarist secret police in 1907 for his efforts.

Alex

[ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Alex and others,
They used Patriarch in the litanies at the Papal Divine Liturgies in Ukraine. Too bad our rights as a Patriarchal church have to be subordinate to politics. I always get the impression that Mosocw is always 1 on Rome's 'to do' list. Why doesn't Rome just make us an "official" patriarchate, which we are? Given our trying years in the catacombs with thousands of martyrs, wouldn't you think we would have the official stamp of approval from Rome by now? I probably don't know all the facts, but what I know is that Moscow poltics is higher on the 'to do' list than giving us our apostolic rights. Thats my rant for now.
-ukrainiancatholic

I don't think you are right about the title of "Exarch" as ancient for the See of Kiev. But it's too late to write and I don't have my books with me to prove my point. You just wait though...

Daniil

Dear Daniil,

Actually, I am right about the Exarch business and when you have time, you can research that for yourself.

Logically, though, it would be impossible for Moscow, from its perspective, to take over the St Andrew tradition from Kyiv, without qualifying Kyiv's status under it.

That doesn't make sense to begin with.

Alex

Dear ukrainiancatholic,

Yes, our Church did refer to "Patriarch Lubomyr" during the papal masses in Ukraine - but that does not a Patriarchate make.

When the Pope was in Canada, Communion at the Papal Mass was distributed by women Eucharistic Ministers without papal permission beforehand.

When the press came forward to ask about this, the Vatican advisers with the Pope said that His Holiness respected the local Canadian tradition in this respect.

But there are many churches in North America and elsewhere that would not call Lubomyr "Patriarch" because Rome hasn't officially declared him so.

So he is Patriarch in some places, but not in others, and he isn't recognized as such Rome or any other outside Church body.

Such is our life . . .

Alex

After he 4th session of the PATRIARCHAL SOBOR of the UGCC it was announced by the Synod that all of the UGCC is to address the Head as PAtriarch despite the "unofficial" recognition.

The SOBOR (of which I was a delegate) voted on this as, one voice, for. It was later "set in stone" by the Holy Synod in Kyiv a week later.

PS Its funny. The basilians are now recognizing the patriarch. I was at St NIcholas Cathedral recently,(a historically Basilian Church), who refused to recognize the patriarch in the liturgy for a long tome. Now they do. I LOVE IT

Dear Ukipatr,
How fortunate you were to participate as a delegate at the sobor. First of all I would like to know is: Was there some kind of vote about the recognition of Kyr Husar as Patriarch? Was there some kind of poll or was it a "hands up Process". Is there some kind of document of this recognition signed by all the bishops of the UGCC. If so I would really like to have a copy of it so that I could present it to some people down here in Brazil. As Alex has written in one of his responses. There are many churches that still don't recognize Husar as Patriarch or at least don't commemorate him as one during the Liturgy. From the churches down here at least the ones that I have visisted none of them do and this is very sad. The situation get's even worse if there is some kind of document that the bishops have signed recognizing Husar as Patriarch, but when they get off the planes returning to their diocese they seem to suffer some kind of "loss of memory" (could be the altitude you know).
Lauro

Chain saws are much faster for removing pews than hammers...bring your own marshmellows and weanies.

This might be on the UGCC website under SOBOR. I'm not sure.

Dear Ukipatr,

What about the recognition of Ukrainian Orthodox Saints by our UGCC?

Would it recognize St Petro Mohyla, for example?

And Yaroslav the Wise and Volodymyr Monomach have been glorified by the Orthodox Church (they've been locally venerated for centuries before) - what about them?

Alex

Alex,
I believe that in the future, the deatails of recognizing other Orthodox saints won't be much of a hastle especially the ones that you have mentioned like Yaroslav the Wise, Volodymyr Monomach nor the great metropolitan Petro Mohyla. The problem will probably arise with saints such as St. Josaphat.
Lauro

Dear Lauro,

One thing I've always admired about the Anglicans is how they can come to terms with the Protestant/Catholic struggle of the Reformation.

They have both Protestant and CAtholic martyrs in their calendars, for instance and my Anglican Church here honours both sides on October 31, the "Feast of All Saints of the Reformation Era."

The Orthodox too have their "Josaphat" in the person of St Athanasius of Brest who was martyred by the Poles for condemning the Union of Brest-Litovsk.

And yet, historically, many Ukie Catholics venerated him as a national saint and hero - the Jesuits even placed the feast of St Josaphat on September 16, two days AHEAD of that of St Athanasius so Ukie Catholics wouldn't go on pilgrimage to his shrine . . .

Andrew Sheptytsky cancelled this and restored Josaphat's feast to November 12/25.

Perhaps we could one day have a common feast for both?

Do dreams come true?

Alex

The sobor did not adress this issue, but i believe it wont be a problem in the future

I agree with ukipatr, it will not likely be a major issue, especially with a Studite patriarch at the helm.

Dear Diak,

I beg to differ . . .

Even such a traditional parish as Saints Volodymyr and Olha in Chicago once published an article (by Ewhen Iwankiw) that railed against the veneration of "such typical Russian saints as Dmitri of Rostov, Innocent Irkutsky etc. and they even say that Herman of Alaska was somehow 'Ukrainian!' Such 'saints' were mass-produced by the Russian empire etc. etc."

Perhaps we're over the shock of seeing three-bar Orthodox Crosses around the necks of our Easternizing priests.

But other issues will come to the fore and this will be one of them.

Alex

Don't you all have something better to talk about instead of which holy men you can pray to?
Besides, that sounds like V and O's political talk rather than traditional talk.

doesn't this all seem like kindof a frivolous waste of time.
Unless people have some smarter things to say I think i am gonna stop posting.

ilya

Dear Ilya,

This may not be a "smart" issue, but it certainly is an important ecclesial issue that practically does divide our Churches.

The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox ecumenical commission looked into this very matter - and they came to the conclusion, among other things, that one possible way of achieving unity is by removing the anathemas against each other's Saints.

So which Saints we acknowledge says a lot about what we believe about the Church, especially as those same Saints taught.

St Vasyl Velichkovsky also had a section on Orthodox saints in his writings where he addressed the issue of their recognition - he forbade Greek Catholics to demean them because they weren't acknowledged by Rome etc.

Our very Eastern parishes tend to honour Orthodox saints and this has resulted in conflicts etc.

If it wasn't an issue, we wouldn't be raising it.

But it is throughout our Church. Whether we like it or not.

To ignore such a potentially divisive issue is not "smart" either.

Alex

I'm sure that the issue of saints will be a topic that will have to be dealt with, but I'm preety sure that they wiil work things out.
Another problem actually and maybe more serious would be the actual number of bishops that exist in the Ukrainian churches not only in Ukraine but in the diaspora that is if and when the three churches join to create one Patriarchate. What's going to happen to the bishops in the cities like Kyiv, Lviv,etc. where you have a bishop of the UGCC, UAOC and Kyivan Patriarchate. And what about cities like Chicago? This may turn out to be very complicated. We down here in Brazil have only two Ukrainian bishops one being UGCC and the other from the UAOC, and I think that we would be able to accept maybe one or two more if that were the case but what about the rest? Has anybody ever thought of that? There's going to be a lot of bishops unemployed.
Lauro

Dear Lauro,

Ah, but you are talking about this in the eventuality that our three main jurisdictions should ever unite under one Patriarchate etc.

That would truly be an issue then, as would the saints issue.

But there are ALREADY Ukrainian Catholic parishes where Orthodox saints are venerated (and rightly so, from my viewpoint) and I was wondering if our Synod considered this, even in advance of a possible future reunification.

St Paissy Velichkovsky and so many others - couldn't they be honoured officially by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church NOW? Wouldn't that help with ecumenism NOW?

(Why do you think Ilya sounds so upset?)

Alex

ILYA, I would advise you to watch what you say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

V and Os is probaly the Only parish in the US that preserves Eastern TRADITION in its purest form, and Ukrainain Church tradition, not MUSCOVITE.

Come to our Parish then talk.

I'll pray for you

UKIPATR

PS Dont even mention the benches because we have many many seniors and also, the Greeks also have benches. I prefer not to have them, but some places need them.

Ok, you have a point. But who are these Ukrainian saints that instead of strengthening unity actually and really hinder such a cause besides St Josaphat?
It would be really a step foward as well if the Ukrainian orthodox cannonized metropolitan Andrey or Pariarch Iosef Slipey before Rome did? Now that would be a case.
Lauro

That was a lash of arrogance by the previous poster. This topic is certainly more interesting than some that have crept up on this forum. And who is being frivilous here with comments like that?

As with Sts. Seraphim of Sarov, Sergius of Radonezh and others, saints often define the spiritual identity and inspiration of even whole races of people and it is important. I for one enjoy talking about holy people who were "angels in the flesh" and believe many can gain efficacy from their example and prayers.

I am sorry,
I should have explained myself.
What I meant was that a more enlightened group like yourselves shouldn't worry about which saints you can and can't venerate because of jurisdictional red tape.
Holy people are holy people. Saints with wisdom to offer shouldn't be ignored because they were french, irish, chinese or russian. We should be able to look past these sorts of things.

sorry again.

OH, patriot types,

Remember that the muscovites got their tradition from kiev and in many cases preserved it with dignity and attention to detail. If our authorities are to reside in KIEV, than they should be following the KIEVAN tradition. Now lots of work would heve to go into this due to the fact that this tradition has been lost to our church. I hope that those responsible are able to see past the ethnic barrier and see that we really are of the same tradition.
what exacly is a pure ukrainian tradition? do you mean the ruthenica?

sorry yet again.

ilya

+ XPICTOC BOCKPECE +

Why is it that Ukrainian Greek Catholics and sometimes Ukrainian Orthodox respect Greek traditions but despise anything that comes from Russia? Ilya has a point that the area of modern-day Russia received Christianity and its liturgical traditions from the area of modern-day Ukraine. However, this should not really matter. We should not worship how we worship, but rather we should worship God. One must watch out lest "you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition." (Mark 7:9)

Alex, in my opinion Dmitri (Tuptalo) of Rostov, although his Psalter to the Mother of God was somewhat weird, was a holy man.

Ukipatr, what is Eastern tradition exactly? What is Ukrainian Church tradition? What is wrong with Moscow?

I don't mean to anger or offend.

Christ is risen!!!

Daniil

XPICTOC BOCKPECE!

Very interesting points, Daniil, and no offence taken here. Sts. Seraphim of Sarov, Dmitri Rostovski and Sergius of Radonezh are central at least to my own "spirituality". as are Boris and Hlib, St. Vladimir, etc. yet I am undeniably Orthodox in communion with Rome/Greek Catholic. The avatar is St. Leonid Federov, spiritual child of Sts. Andrey and Klementy Sheptytsky, Studite monk, confessor for the Kyivan Church and Russian (native of St. Petersburg).

Rus' implies all of Rus', whether "great" or "little". Direct or indirect, all of Rus' has its spiritual roots in Kyiv from the conversions of Askold and Olha to the baptism of St. Vladimir in the Dnipro to the martyrdom of Boris and Hlib, etc. etc. We borrow from Greeks and Bulgarians, why not from our own Kyivan tradition?

St. Vladimir was of the house of Rurik, a Viking, and not a native of Ivano-Frankivsk as some would like to believe. The milieu of the 10th century Rus' is proof of the universality of the Kyivan tradition, its immense evangelical potential, which even speaks to a pagan Viking when his envoys tell him "we knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth" as his chronicler St. Nestor tells us.

Sorry for snapping ILYA.

What I meant was that even though Moscow recieved their tradition from Kyiv, over the years they have developed their own neuances (forgive my spelling)in liturgics. Its just the way things evolve. When I say Ukrainain Tradition, I'm saying Kyivan-Galician, Dont forget, MP in Kyiv does have its influence from the "Muscovite" tradition based on the fact that it really is the Russian Orthodocx Church in Ukraine. The general tradition is the same but each has its own things based on the change of times.

To answer the Greek-Russian-Ukrainian thing, Greek is where we all recieved our religion and general liturgical trditions, Kyiv came before Moscow. There should have been a Kyivan Patriarchate.

Another thing is that in Soviet times the ROC had its KGB agents, Ukrainians automatically see the ROC as the same Church it was in Soviet times (when its really not).

BUT, the Moscow Patriarchate knows that if it wasn't for its parishes in Ukraine, it would be 1/2 or 2/3 the size it is.

Hence, Ukraine wants its own Church, Russia wont allow it because they will lose millions of parishoners and thousands of parishes.

RUSSIA and UKRAINE are natural enemies unfortunately. I'm not saying i am one who despises the Russians totally, but i could understand why people are that way.

Despite all that, I have to admit that Moscow's liturgics are AWESOME. I wish we were as strong in liturgical tradition!

UKIPATR

Dear Ilya and Daniil,

This topic has gone beyond what I envisioned when I asked about the saints - yes it is a jurisdictional issue that has yet to be decided by our hierarchy.

Moscow has indeed taken from Kyiv and the Kyivan tradition.

But what is wrong with Moscow, you ask?

I would ask what is wrong with those of our Easternizing members who do what Moscow would never do - separate Church from nationality and national culture.

In addition, our Kyivan Tradition has its own authentic Orthodox tradition that should be good enough for us, no?

Only Ukrainians would want to make an issue of being "universal" and "de-ethnicized" when it comes to their church - even though we have enough church nationalists of our own too.

If you don't see a difference between Kyiv and Moscow or Zagorsk, I would suggest that you need to continue studying this whole issue more.

Russophilism is a definite phenomenon that affected both our Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

It threatened to swallow us, and others, up completely via forced assimilation and open persecution.

I, for one, have a problem even being associated with the Russian Church owing to its acts against the Ukrainian Catholic Church - for which it has never even admitted complicity much less apologise for.

If you want to be Russian Orthodox, be Russian Orthodox - there's nothing wrong with that.

Unless you are Ukrainian.

And I think I repeat the views of most Ukrainians in this respect.

I apologise for whatever harshness is seen here. Perhaps I should just excuse myself from speaking with my own Ukie colleagues on any of these topics.

But, as you are people with a future in our Church, it is better you hear this from me - than from others who would be much more harsh, believe me.

Alex

+ XPICTOC BOCKPECE +

Dear Alex,

I understand that there is a difference between Kyivan and Moscovite Church traditions. When I asked the question "What is wrong with Moscow?" I did see it meaning "Hey everybody, let's become Russians!" but rather "Hey everybody, Russian tradition does not deserve such a bad image because of the actions of some of its most foolish leaders."

I am never going to convert to another Church, unless it's because my whole Church (i.e. the UGCC) joins another Church (i.e. the Orthodox Church).

I understand that lots of Ukrainians are upset about the Lviv Pseudo-Sobor and all that came out of it. However, it was in the past and although much suffering came out of it, we should look at the positive. Many of our bishops have been glorified by God as saints because of their suffering and confession of Faith. Now, I am not saying to thank the ROC, but we should distinguish between the Judas-like betrayers of God and the Church (i.e. Agent Drozdov) and the God-inspired beatiful traditions that come from Russia. When our own God-inspired beatiful tradition has some gaps in it, is it wrong to fill it in with that of the north-east (as long as it does not conflict or predominate)?

Again, I do not mean to offend or anger, just to debate.

"It is the day of Resurrection, let us be radiant for the feast, and let us embrace one another. Let us say, Brethren, even to them that hate us, let us forgive all things on the Resurrection..."

Daniil

Dear Daniil,

Well, O.K. then . . .

You know I love you!

And how do you keep the girls away from your door long enough to study?

Care to share any secrets?

Alex

Dear Alex,

I think so much of the Russophilism you refer to is actually a Byzantinism in a Russian guise. It is a mentality and attitude inherited from Byzantium, exploited by successive Tsars and emperors, being remoulded to prop up their own ideologies.

This is where it becomes an embrionic Sergianism, its seeds sown by men such as St Joseph Volotsky and finding its flowering and fruition in the pact between Metropolitan Sergius and Joseph Stalin. The exploitaion of the Church by the state and the State by the Church is clear in the lives of Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. As we know, the lives of these men were not only to touch the history and identity of Ukrainians, but also of the pious Russians - caught up to an extent in the Russian messianic ideology, but who also looked back beyond all of this to a Tradition in which Muscovy, Kiev, Volhynia, Galicia and so many cities and princedoms were united as part of Holy Rus'. We must all look back to this vision.

Yes, we get a bit romantic and hazy, but it allows to see beyond nationalsim, Russian expansionism and Russification to a golden age of Rus' Christianity, shared and died for by the ancestors of today's religiously divided Slavs.

In this Tradition, the likes of His Grace, Savvati, Old Rite Orthodox Bishop of Kiev and All Ukraine, can be true to the Tradition of Orthodox Rus' and still be a true and loyal Ukrainian. The same can be said of the cossacks who remained loyal to Old Orthodoxy until this day.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

Well said!

I am striving to be like that too - how well I'm progressing, I don't know, but it is my ideal!

Alex

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

I've heard that the Old Orthodox Kozaks had extra liturgies such as that of St Mark and St Peter.

What could you share with us in this regard?

Alex

The kozaks are interesting in as much as they carries rare books beyond the borders of the Russian empire. The Turchanie Old Believers preserved the liturgies of Sts Peter, James and Mark - in Slavonic of course.

Sadly, the Turks confiscated it when the Turchanie left Turkey in the 1960's.

The same contents appear in Greek. I think it was the Rossano manuscript.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, FAther Mark,

I was wondering if an ancient liturgy such as that of St Clement could be legitimately celebrated today?

Alex

I don't know the answer to that one Alex.

The problem would probably be a cultural one. For Old Believers there would be questions such as liturgical music and the proskomidia. How would Old Rite practices, so linked with a particular liturgy fit into another extant Orthodox rite.

Again, it largely comes down to the celebration of rites within the living Tradition of the Church. To some extent this Tradition becomes localised as some legitmate practices fall out of use in some places.

Another problem with the ancient liturgies is that we lack the rubrics. For example, the rubrics of the liturgy of St James are not Paleochristian, but Byzantine.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

Why were other liturgies suppressed by the Byzantine Church then?

The Roman Church did this . . .

Alex

Byzantinisation is a large part of the equation, I think. With the growth of centralised and Hellenised Church Rule, power issued from the main cities of the empire and the semitic and coptic elements of Christianity vanished under a tide of standardisation. The usage of the Great Church came to dominate Orthodox liturgical life, just as certain Russian Cathedral customs were imposed on all Churches in the Russian land. A fear of difference can motivate much of this standardisation. To a certain extent this is a problem in the mentality of both the Old Believers and the Nikonians in Russian history.

For a proper answer you need a liturgical scholar. I'm afraid I know very little about liturgy - I just enjoy it and get on with it.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

There are those who speak what they know, and others who know what they speak.

You are of the latter category!

Alex

Dear Father Mark, I think you are right in principle about the issue of Russophilism. I would call it Neo-Byzantianism as Moscow did claim to be the sole inheritor of Byzantine tradition after the fall of Constantinople.

But on the other hand it is a positive thing, not negative, to appreciate the Kyivan tradition in toto including its particular expressions as it was transmitted to Novgorod, Yaroslavl, Vladimir, Suzdal, etc.

Yes, the Russophilism is neo-Byzantine. I would love to see a far greater interest in provincial 'Russian' customs, and of course the valuing of Kyiv as the Mother of Russian cities and the Mother of Rus' Orthodoxy! My faith is, I have to admit, very Moscow centred because of Old Orthodox history and the course of Russian history, but I know that I must find more and more about the faith of Rus' before the centralisation and standardisation of liturgy and tradition under Ivan Grozny. My ignorance is deep, but I try at least to lessen it's depth!

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

Have you had a chance to see the new Belakrinitsa video on the Old Believers in Ukraine?

I helped with that and I'm mentioned in the credits, believe it or not . . .

Even my wife now joins me in the Entrance and Departure Bows . . .

Alex

Is this one of Taras's projects? Sounds brilliant!

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

Yes, indeed!

He's trying to do more videos.

But the first one does give one a flavour for Old Believer spiritual culture, how to do prostrations, pictures of the Old Believer tombs in Kyiv and an interview with the Met. of Kyiv.

Alex

Yes, I think I already have the footing that has been used for this - all a bit crackly but very spiritual.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Friends,

Since we've gotten off topic, and since the last several posts have had nothing to do with the original question that began this thread and since people seem to have lost interest in its altogether and since . . .

The thread should therefore be closed!

(Oops! Have I usurped the role of a Moderator? )

Alex

Alex,

The original thread started over a year ago (Jan 24, 2002) regarding pews. I was originally derailed onto the topic of commemorating the Patriarch of the UGCC. The last post during this time was from you on Feb 28, 2002.

The thread continued somehow with new information about official naming of the UGCC Patriarch on Apr 29, 2003 (14 months later!).

Joe

Dear Cantor Joseph,

So what you are saying is that the Moderator here really IS asleep at the switch!

You should look into a career in "quality control" Big Guy!

Alex

Alex,

I actually went to begin reading the thread and couldn't understand how it started with pews and ended up with the UGCC Patriarch. Then I found the culprit, the guy assuming moderatorship!

God grant you many happy, blessed years!

Joe

Dear Cantor Joseph,

You too, Cantor and Mentor, you too!

Alex