Does this development mean that the "Patriarchal Russians" now recognize the "canonical" status of an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church, separate from the Moscow Pariarchate?

The Ukrainian Church in America is not an autocephalous Church, but rather a Church for Ukrainian Americans and Canadians under the omophor of the Ecumenical Patriarch, similar to the ACROD. It is fully canonical, and is not attempting in any way to set up a rival church to the canonical UOC-MP.

There is NO autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Only an autonomous Church under the omophor of Metropolitan Volodymyr Sabodan.

Alexandr

Thank you for the clarification.

The Kyiv Patriarchate, despite having a Patriarch, Synod, Hierarchy, monasteries, seminaries, and upwards of 3,000 parishes, does not exist? Reminds me of the days when the US government was denying the existence of the People's Republic of China. I wonder if Filaret enjoys ping-pong.

Fr. Serge

According to government statistics, the Kyivan Patriarchate also has more active members than any other church in Ukraine. It is the most popular church in term of members. The best part is that the UO-Kyivan Patriarch is my grandfather's second cousin (both born in Ivane Puste, Halychyna / Galicia) which would make him my.....??

I.F.

There are also two Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) jurisdictions in Ukraine, one under the omophor of Metropolitan +Mefodiy and another under Archbishop +Ihor. The Kyivan Patriarchate (KP) also now has several parishes in the US as does the UAOC.

Patriarch Lubomyr has frequent communication with the leadership of both churches, and clergy of each have spoken at UGCC functions and vice versa. As I understand there has even been some discussion of sharing educational facilities.

Interesting to see the OCA and ROCOR now both as members of SCOBA and thus de facto in communion, something I did not think I would live to see.

Just a point of clarification, ROCOR is not a member of SCOBA. They are in communion with each other though.

While ROCOR is now an "autonomous" relation of the MP, and the MP is now a member of SCOBA, I agree that strictly speaking ROCOR is not yet a member. ROCOR certainly is now in communion with the MP and by extension the OCA via the MP communion as you say.

So basically now the OCA and ROCOR enjoy similar status as autonomous parts of the MP? Article 13 of the Act of Canonical Communion states that ROCOR receives her chrism from the MP. This is a significant ecclesiastical and liturgical act.

The Orthodox Church in America is autocephalous, not autonomous, and the Tomos of Autocephaly notes that the Orthodox Church in America has the right to consecrate the Holy Chrism.

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is fully a part of the Russian Church (Moscow Patriarchate) and therefore receives Holy Chrism from the Patriarch of Moscow. In the discussion which led up to the restoration of Communion the Patriarchate offered autonomy, but the Russian Orthodox Church of Russia preferred to remain part of the Patriarchate.

Fr. Serge

I'm perplexed by Ukrainian Church statistics. Both the UOC-MP and UOC-KP have produced surveys, claims and counter-claims as to who has more faithful.

That having been said, I do notice that while the UOC-KP claims to have the most faithful, it is the UOC-MP that has, far and away, the largest numbers of priests, monks and nuns, seemingly more than the UGCC, UOC-KP and UAOC combined. Why is this so?

I've read in many places that a lot of Ukrainians don't particularly care where they go to Church, as long as it is "Orthodox" -- which can be defined so loosely as to include even the UGCC. Is that correct?

Second cousin, twice removed.

Find the common ancestor, then step down each side until you reach one of the cousins in question. Grandchild =1st cousin, great-grandchild = 2d cousin, etc. Then keep counting down the other side, with each generation being a "removed."

So your father's cousin (grandchildren of the same person)is your first cousin, once removed.

hawkk

. The Moscow Patriarchate is well funded by non-parishioners. Many parishes receive some or all of their funding from the Moscow Patriarch, some from businesses, and others from questionable sources. Oil rich Russia can buy anything it wants when a barrel of crude is $150.

Also, the Soviet minded bureaucrats of Eastern Ukraine will always favor a MP Church over ANY other. Three hundred years of brutal repression, of which the Soviet era was worst has created a mindset which can't think independently. It is difficult for non MP churches to simply get a lot of land on which to build a church, never mind the actual cost of construction.

Finally, the statistical numbers the MP church providess are questionable. Everyone knows that active church attendance diminishes exponentially from West to Eastern Ukraine due to the fact that the Eastern regions were part of Soviet Ukraine for a longer period of time than was Western Ukraine. Religion in Eastern Ukraine was much more brutally suppressed and fundamentally the vast majority of the people were de-churched. Going to church perhaps one or twice per year is the norm in Eastern Ukraine, whereas in Western Ukraine people engage more actively in their church. Fundamentally, the MP lists the number of people who may go to church once per year and who largely do not a have any allegiance. This theory is easily tested by simply visiting Ukrainian Orthodox - KP and Greek Catholic churches in Western Europe. The UOKP and Greek Catholic churches are full of new émigrés EVERY Sunday, whereas the Russian Orthodox Churches (where UO-MP) would attend are devoid of recent Ukrainian émigrés. Russian Orthodox Churches are the most beautiful in Western Europe but sadly are mostly 'museum pieces'. The theory can also be tested in Carpatho-Ukraine (remember the 1939 declaration) where largely Orthodox believers have been granted the right to retain churches which belonged to Greek Catholics prior to World War 2 - Even when Greek Catholics outnumber the Orthodox.

In short, don't believe the UO-MP statistics regarding parishoners which are mostly wishful thinking.

I.F.

Thanks Dowchak !

I used your theory and have concluded he is my relative so distantly removed, that perhaps I shouldn't mention it anymore.

Thanks,

I.F.

Jean,

Grand dad's second cousin isn't that far removed! (except in the US, where everyone outside first cousins are unknown to many people)

Strictly following the genealogical lines, a grandfather's second cousin is one's relative 8 times removed and a grandfather's first cousin is 6 times removed.

Normally speaking, he is not one's "second cousin" but a "granduncle" or "grandaunt," as the case may be.

The common ancestors of one's gandfather and his second cousin are one's great, great, great, grandparents.

Amado