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.