www.byzcath.org
Patriarch Filaret has considered a option to unite with the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church,since the new election of the President of Ukraine the M.P. is making the K.P. many problems.
Now Filaret is not getting the backing he had in the last administration.One must think if this is even possible to unite, this is a last minute move that Filaret is trying to make to save his K.P.
To me this would only be a Blessing and His Holiness Husar should consider taking now Orthodox clergy from America who want to join the U.G.C.C. Many Orthodox clergy in America would like to start the process as soon as possible.The only way that there is a chance for One United Ukrainian Church would be from Unity.The Clergy wanting to leave the K.P. AS WELL AS THE U.A.O.C. include 3 Bishops and several clergy from America.
Vladika,

Please provide a news link for the assertion that Patriarch Filaret is considering such a move. Thank you.

Many years,

Neil
Filaret and union possible with U.G.C.C.

http://www.ukrinform.ua/ukr/order/?id=885861


IT is also listed on RISU.
Originally Posted by vladika
Patriarch Filaret has considered a option to unite with the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, since the new election of the President of Ukraine the M.P. is making the K.P. many problems.

Blahoslovy vladyko!

I am confident that HB Lubomyr will exercise due prudence in this matter. There are many factors that need to be considered, and certainly a snub to the MP like this would not seem to serve the cause of true unity.


Originally Posted by vladika
To me this would only be a Blessing and His Holiness Husar should consider taking now Orthodox clergy from America who want to join the U.G.C.C. Many Orthodox clergy in America would like to start the process as soon as possible ... The Clergy wanting to leave the K.P. AS WELL AS THE U.A.O.C. include 3 Bishops and several clergy from America.

A united Ukrainian Church would certainly be a blessing, but it doesn't seem to me that this would be the way to achieve that (thank God I'm not the one to make this decision!). A lot of Ukrainians believe in the Orthodox Church as a matter of faith, and I don't think it's likely they would wish to become Catholic just to avoid being re-united with the MP. A fragmentary "reunion" might just serve to further polarize the division between the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

However, this does indeed appear to be an opportunity for our people to get together and have some serious dialogue, seeking truth for its own sake rather than promoting a specific agenda, and that can only be a good thing. grin

I pray that our Risen Lord will guide this situation to a happy conclusion.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

VERY WELL SAID! that is why the O.C.A. I feel will be the example to us all that in order for Orthodoxy to grow it must be open to all using Ukrainian on the church sign keeps many Americans away thinking that we are only for Ukrainians I have even been told by people that they thought they had to speak Ukrainian to even enter our church. lol not funny but very true!
If Their Beattitudes Lubomyr and Filaret even go so far as to form a copastoral agreement providing for cross-reception of all sacraments except ordination (such agreements exist between the Armenian Churches), and cross recognition of ordination, that would be huge. And it's not something that either has expressed hostility to.

I doubt we'll see corporate reunion.

But in either case, the KP is isolated from much of Orthodoxy by being out of communion with both the sees of Moskva and Byzantium.
This is not going to happen. It would be regarded as a hostile act by world Orthodoxy (despite the non-canonical status of the KP in the eyes of most Orthodox) and is not likely to receive the Vatican's blessing. Such action would torpedo Orthodox/Catholic dialouge and jettison decades of effort on both sides.
Interesting. In a way not surprising as both the UGCC and the KP appeal to Ukrainian separatism/nationalism against Russia. I am surprised a former Russian Orthodox metropolitan of Kiev (Filaret, playing the nationalist card since Ukrainian independence) and his church would want to make such a move. If it's true it seems the KP have given up on trying to be accepted by the Orthodox.

Met. Lubomyr is probably rightly suspicious.

Illogical but understandable: although the KP aren't Orthodox, strictly speaking (a parasynagogue if I'm using that term correctly: out of communion but part of the family), and seem to be asking to become Greek Catholics, bringing the KP into the UGCC would torpedo ecumenism as it would start more Russian accusations of Greek Catholic proselytism.

But if the KP are honest, Roman Catholic ecclesiology (one true church like Orthodoxy) would say to accept them... but, as Fr Serge says, for ecumenism's sake, as quietly as possible.
Quote
as Fr Serge says, for ecumenism's sake, as quietly as possible.


I don't recognize this quote - can someone enlighten me?

As to whether this will or won't happen, I don't have a crystal ball. But it would not be so easy for Pope Benedict to refuse, what with the Anglican iron in the fire. In public, Moscow would protest loudly, but since this would solve a problem for them, they might not be particularly unhappy about it.

I note that Philaret is 80 years of age, and Lubomyr is not much younger, as well as nearly blind. That raises the possibility that they might both retire, and a joint synod could elect one new Patriarch. This could be quite interesting.

Again, I myself don't know what is actually going on - or if anything is actually going on. But the situation is probably worth watching.

Fr. Serge
It's not verbatim but 10 years ago I understood you to say that of course Rome accepts converts from the Orthodox but, emphasis yours, quietly. I agree!
I hope that I may be pardoned for forgetting an off-the-cuff comment of ten years ago. I would have been contrasting such quiet with the ballyhoo sometimes made when a Catholic becomes Orthodox.

Fr. Serge
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Interesting. In a way not surprising as both the UGCC and the KP appeal to Ukrainian separatism/nationalism against Russia.


Khrystos Voskres everyone! My first post.

I think it could be said with even more force that the Russian Orthodox Church appeals to Russian nationalism against Ukraine, to point out the obverse of what you have posted above young fogey. It is a two-way street and, as Patriarch Filaret has pointed out, in his opinion, the Moscow Patriarch does not even recognize "Ukrainians" as a nation but as "little Russians" or "malorossy" in the words of the Patriarch of Moscow's public relations executive.

First post, so if my etiquette is wrong, please correct. blush

In Christ,

Vladzyunyu
Vladzyunyu:
Russia for centuries has been poking its nose into Ukraine's business. It wants Ukraine's rich heritage, resources and religion for its own.
Russia just doesn't get it - Ukraine will always be Ukraine.
Pavloosh
Why do you stand like Cain? For that he who is jealous of his brother, and has him in hatred, is bound by the guilt of homicide, the Apostle John declares in his epistle, saying, "Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has life abiding in him." And again: "He that says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness even until now, and walks in darkness, and knows not whither he goes, because that darkness has blinded his eyes." 1 John 2:9-11 Whosoever hates, says he, his brother, walks in darkness, and knows not whither he goes. For he goes unconsciously to Gehenna, in ignorance and blindness; he is hurrying into punishment, departing, that is, from the light of Christ, who warns and says, "I am the light of the world. He that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." John 8:12 But he follows Christ who stands in His precepts, who walks in the way of His teaching, who follows His footsteps and His ways, who imitates that which Christ both did and taught; in accordance with what Peter also exhorts and warns, saying, "Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow His steps." 1 Peter 2:21

St Cyprian of Cathage

Alexandr
Why do Russians cry foul when Ukrainians ask to be left alone?

Fr. Deacon Lance
Why do Ukrainian separatists and Americans (who have no stake in this issue), cry foul when Malyrussniaki ask to be left alone? There are those of us who will not stand idly by while Rus is carved up to be devoured by the West.

Alexandr
Because if you want to be Russian, Great or Little, Russia has plenty of land for you to be Russian in. As for Rus, it has already been carved up, welcome to 2010. And if Ukraine has turned to the West, Russia has noone to blame but herself.
Alexandr. What makes you think the West is behind Ukraine being independent? This is the argument, unfortunately, that the Kompartiya (Communist Party) makes. In 1991, the people of Ukraine voted for independence on their own, with no help whatsoever from the West. They wished to be free of Russian imperial repression. If anything, the at-the-time President of the U.S.A., George Bush Senior, was against the dismantling of the Soviet Union. Ukrainians decided on their own to be rid of the Soviet empire. Please refrain from using the derogatory term "molorossy" as many Ukrainians during the Soviet Union perished in the Gulag for protecting the Ukrainian underground Church, culture, and language. Unless of course you agree that coerced Russification was acceptable.

In 1988, the Cardinal of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, Myroslav Lubachivsky, wrote a Pastoral Letter to the entire Russian nation asking forgiveness for any wrongs. Many Ukrainians felt this unwarranted because at the time Ukrainians were suffering under the Russian yoke. But as Jesus Christ Himself said, what good are you if you only love those who love you in return, even the tax collectors....

Do you think any member of the Russian Church or nation ever responded to the Ukrainian offer of mutual forgiveness in Christ? Has anyone ever from the Russian Orthodox Church ever asked forgiveness for accepting the liquidation of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in 1946? Not one, even though the Russian Orthodox Church maintains itself as a continuation of that same Church.

Patriarch Filaret of the Ukrainian Orthodox Kyivan Patriarchate publicly recanted of his cooperation with the K.G.B. during the Soviet era. This is entirely different to Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church who has never recanted anything from the Soviet era, even though he became the Russian Orthodox representative to the World Council of Churches in 1972, clearly with the Kremlin's approval. According to the Times Online, Patriarch Kirill's codename in the K.G.B. was Mikhailov.

This whole question has nothing to do with the West. It has everything to do with Christian respect and love. Ukrainians do not wish Russia ill-will. In fact in Ukraine, the Russian language and Church and culture have free reign. In Russia, the second largest ethnic group is the Ukrainians. Guess how many Ukrainian Catholic Churches or Ukrainian schools are allowed in Putin's Russia?

In Christ,

Vladzyunyu.
There are two sides to every story, even if one side does not particularly care to hear the other side. And if you check the news, the tide has turned in the Ukraine. The Sevastopol base lease has been extended another 40 years, and Ukraine has regained it's sanity and peace is once again being restored in the Rus family.

According to the BBC today Ukraine is not unified in its support of the Russian Naval presence. In fact there was violence inside the Ukrainian Parliament during the vote.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8645847.stm
I think the premise of this original post in this thread is really misleading, at best. Did anyone read the article? Patriarch Filaret doesn't say "he wants unity with the U.G.C.C." or that he thinks Ukraine politics are unfavorable to his cause. This was editorializing in the first post. He does say he would hope for unity with the U.G.C.C. - AFTER all the Orthodox in Ukraine have united into a single body. Now this is something quite different. That possibility seems a long way off indeed. He was not making any kind of overture to the U.G.C.C. in any sense.
Patriarch Filaret? Who appointed him? What happened to his predecessor? And what Orthodox churches recognize him? Just want to address those questions first.
Chadrook, exactly. I wonder the same. smile
You might want to tread lightly on that "What Orthodox Churches recognize him?" question, considering how many now-canonical Orthodox Churches began as non-canonical breakaways of the Ecumenical or Moscow Patriarchates. Until recently, how many Orthodox Churches recognized the OCA?
To follow that note a good example may be (and I mean no offense) how ROCOR was in Communion with the Romanian, Bulgarian, and one of the Synods of Greek Old Calendar Bishops. Now some in ROCOR say that they (the Bulgarian, Romanian, and Greek Old Calendar Churches) are no longer "Orthodox" but only a few years ago they were.

Or the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which was in "schism" for a long time because the EP would not recognize her independence.

There seems to be a pattern of this in Orthodoxy in the late 19th and 20th century (I am not sure of anything before that)
Still the question stands. Stuart you use a bad example by pointing out the OCA. The United States has its unique jurisdictional problems and cannot compare to a place that has been orthodox for over a thousand years. And Nelson who are these some in ROCOR? I dont have a dog in this fight but there is alot to be said for when it comes to who you are in communion with and it makes it easy for us laymen to get to know who he is. Chad
Who appointed Philaret? He was elected by the Great Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate.

What happened to his predecessors? (Note the plural, please). His immediate predecessor was Kyr Volodymyr (Romaniuk), who died a natural death. He in turn succeeded Patriarch Mystyslav (Skrypnyk), who had lived for several decades in America before being elected Patriarch in Ukraine.

What Orthodox Churches recognize Philaret? So far as I am aware, no Local Orthodox Church currently extends full, formal recognition to Philaret.

The OCA may well be a poor example, Perhaps it is better to consider the Orthodox Church of Poland, which was first proclaimed Orthodox by the Ecumenical Patriarchate because of the lack of normal communications with Moscow and then, some thirty years later, was forced to repudiate the autocephaly granted by Constantinople and then given another autocephaly by Moscow.

One could also discuss the matter of Bulgaria (which has also been Orthodox for a thousand years or so), excommunicated by Constantinople but supported by Moscow. And there is the matter of the Orthodox Church of Czechoslovakia - or perhaps I should say the Orthodox Churches
of Czechoslovakia since this country managed to have one Orthodox Church derived from Moscow and another derived from Constantinople.

I could continue, but there's not much point in listing yet more examples.

Fr. Serge
Thank you Father for giving me an answer on this. I understand the mess when it comes to the whose who of the Orthodox world but it is kind of strange that he is not recognized by any of the Orthodox churches. This is not one of those straw man arguments I really dont know anything about them. I am in a very small church that some would say is walled off but I know why and can explain it. Chad
Originally Posted by chadrook
Patriarch Filaret? Who appointed him? What happened to his predecessor? And what Orthodox churches recognize him? Just want to address those questions first.

His synod elected him. His synod is a schism, but all of its priests and bishops were validly ordained. The schism was over autonomy vs autocephaly, and the fundamental nature of the relationship between Moskva and Kyiv...

The patriarchal succession is HB. Mstyslav (1992-1993), HB Volodymyr (1993-1995), and HB Filaret (1995-present).


The Catholic Churches all recognize His Beattitude as a validly ordained bishop and a validly elected primate of an autocephalous church... one with whom much ecumenical discussion has been done.

The Russian Orthodox consider him outside the faith; a schismatic and possible heretic.

The Ecumenical Patriarch is in discussions of recognition of the UOC-KP's autocephaly.

All in all, it's a reasonably typical establishment of an autocephalous patriarchate within the Eastern Orthodox Communion... and that is truly the sad part of it. Plenty of historical schisms and eventual reunions in the EOC...


What does that have to do with the price of pirozhi's in Moscow?
Stephanos I
Ask a typical ethnic Ukrainian speaker about Russ and he will tell you to look it up in the history books. These people have 1000 years of culture and language distinct from modern Russia. They have felt themselves as a distinct nation long before the United States even existed. They need no help from the West in order to stir up nationalism. They only need bring to mind recent events of 20th century to create a desire to be apart from Russia (no, I am not anti Russian, just have a lot of experience in western half of Ukraine). Sorry, don't mean to stir things.
I've been in Moscow several times, but never bought any pirozhis (piroshki, pyrohy, vareniki) there, so I've no basis for an opinion of the matter!

Fr. Serge
XB

Father bless.

I've purchased piroshki at our local ROCOR parish's festival, but they were not pirohi. They were pastry filled with meat and baked. Quite good.
Father Bless,

Thank you again. I looked it up also and found that they already have and Orthodox Church and it is recognized by Moscow and the other Sees. This must be one of those nationalist things that we Americans dont understand. It goes without saying that if they have a thousand year history as some point out then we can also assume that they also have a church.
It's actually easy to understand: The Muscovite Patriarchate has attempted to suppress the Ukrainian liturgical praxis (The Kyivan liturgy) and replace it with the Nikonian Russian liturgy. In the same manner, Russian governments (both Tsarist and Soviet) have consistently tried to suppress the Ukrainian Language. The soviets sent a large number of Ukrainians to the Gulags for being upset about Russification of Ukrainian* Language and lifestyle.

It's a historical truth.

It's only sensible that the Ukrainian synod would ask for, and be denied, autocephaly by Russia. The hatred is long standing, irrational, and integrated into Russian culture. It's bigotry, pure and simple, but it's a socially acceptable one in Russia...

* Really, the differences in the ukrainian I've seen from russian are not that big. Yes, there are differences. But a ukrainian speaker avoiding idiomatic expressions should be intelligible to a russian, and vice versa... at least once they know the difference in pronunciation of certain letters...
OH my! Kyivan Liturgy? Replacing with Nikonian Recension? A historical truth according to who?

доколе будете любить суету?

Alexandr

Wow, this degraded into a Ukrainian versus Russian thread faster than these types of threads usually do. frown
Dr. Eric,

I think any discussion of Patriarch Filaret and the UOC-KP is necessarily one of Ukrainian nationalism.
Or Russian imperialism--take your choice.
Ukrainian nationalism as a reation to Russian imperialism?
They go together like pastrami and rye.
You can't blame Russia for imperialism, as they have no natural borders in the west, so expansion is the only way for them to maintain their state. It's just very basic geopolitics. Actually, the same applies to Ukraine.

When there's a conflict it doesn't necessarily mean that somebody is doing something wrong and somebody is guilty. It's just the way it is in an imperfect world. But that's just my humble opinion.

And yes, I know that we in Poland are next.
Originally Posted by Epiphanius
Dr. Eric,

I think any discussion of Patriarch Filaret and the UOC-KP is necessarily one of Ukrainian nationalism.
Originally Posted by StuartK
Or Russian imperialism--take your choice.
Originally Posted by Epiphanius
Ukrainian nationalism as a reation to Russian imperialism?


They are various facets of the same issue: the relationship of Moscow and Kyiv.
OY!
Quote
You can't blame Russia for imperialism, as they have no natural borders in the west, so expansion is the only way for them to maintain their state. It's just very basic geopolitics. Actually, the same applies to Ukraine.


So, where do they stop? At the Niemen? At the Oder-Neisse line? It's one vast plain until you get to North Sea. . .

The question begged here is who is Russia's enemy? Neither Ukraine nor Belarus have the military power nor the inclination to invade the Rodina. So is it the Poles? How about the Germans or the Danes?

The simple truth is Western Europe is utterly debellicized. The entire EU spends an average of just 2% of its GDP on military forces, and lacks the manpower, the equipment, and the willpower to project power beyond its own borders. Simply putting 50,000 men into Afghanistan has the NATO alliance at full stretch--and the Russians know this full well.

Western Europe has some 1.6 million men in uniform. Of these, only about 120,000 can be considered combat ready, and of those, only some 60,000 in all are "deployable". Russia has nothing to fear from its European neighbors.

Those who want to read more, go to my article Coalition of the Incapable . Though I wrote it almost three years ago, nothing much has changed. If anything, the situation has gotten worse due to the European financial crisis and subsequent recession,
Dear Aleksandr,

Sorry to do this to you, but I'm the editor of the reprint of the book in question, so I feel an obligation. The Kyivan Liturgy was not and is not a figment of anyone's imagination. Should you wish more information about it, if you can read Church-Slavonic (as I have the impression is the case) order a copy of the Liturgicon of St. Peter (Mohyla) from Eastern Christian Publications.

It is also true - and verifiable - that the Russian government, for reasons best known to itself, forbade the use of the Kyivan Liturgy around 1720.

If you already have texts of the Old-Rite services, you'll find a comparison of the pre-Nikonian Moscow version with the Kyivan version worthwhile.

Fr. Serge
Quote
It is also true - and verifiable - that the Russian government, for reasons best known to itself, forbade the use of the Kyivan Liturgy around 1720.


Was it that late? Paul Meyendorff, in Russia, Ritual and Reform, seems to indicate that the old books were outlawed as early as 1664 or so, but continued in use in many places simply because the supply of new books did not keep up with the demand (and were very expensive, to boot). Certainly the synod of 1667 mandated the exclusive use of the reformed books:

Quote
Let them print it thus in the future, and let no one dare add, remove or change anything from now on. And even if an angel should say anything different, do not believe him [cited in Meyendorff, p.71]


Perhaps in the 1720s the extension of Russian jurisdiction into former Lithuanian and Polish lands brought more pre-Nikonian parishes under Muscovite rule?
Originally Posted by StuartK

Perhaps in the 1720s the extension of Russian jurisdiction into former Lithuanian and Polish lands brought more pre-Nikonian parishes under Muscovite rule?


In the 18th century the first lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were annexed by Russia in 1772. But what was going on earlier in matters of ecclesiastical jurisdiction - I don't know.
The year 1772 marks the first partition of Poland, but in the 17th century, the boundaries of Poland-Lithuania reached far into what is now Ukraine, and through the various shifts resulting from conflicts such as the Great Northern War, areas which had been in dispute shifted into Muscovite jurisdiction.
Many thanks to Fr. Serge not only for his posting of historic fact, but his efforts in making the Mohylian Liturgikon available. Дуже дякую!!!

As much as some would like to ignore or make it go away, yes, there is a distinctly particular Kyivan liturgical development.
It is interesting that there are those on both sides of the fence who wish it would go away--Greek Catholics unhappy with elements long considered "Russifications" that turn out to be part of the authentic Slavic usage; and Orthodox unhappy to discover elements long believed to be "latinizations" are in fact part of the Orthodox heritage. The Kyivan liturgical tradition can be the nucleus around which a united Kyivan Church can reform.
Thanks for the compliment - I hope you are enjoying the Liturgicon edited by Saint Peter (Mohyla). He also did a justly famed Trebnyk, which was reprinted (in two distinct reprints) in 1988. The one which can actually be read is that of Arkady Zhukhovsky and the Shevchenko Scientific Society.

There are of course other books which help us to become more familiar with various aspects of the Kyivan liturgical tradition (I've been working on the Arkhieratikon for the past few years), but reprints are not cheap, nor are they easily accomplished.

Happy reading!

Fr. Serge
Quote
The one which can actually be read is that of Arkady Zhukhovsky and the Shevchenko Scientific Society.


Thanks again. My fifth- or sixth-hand photocopy of the 1646 Trebnyk is largely illegible.
Again, you are most welcome. You want one in two colors, with good, clear, print - bearing in mind that we are discussing the seventeenth century.

Fr. Serge
Originally Posted by StuartK
The year 1772 marks the first partition of Poland, but in the 17th century, the boundaries of Poland-Lithuania reached far into what is now Ukraine, and through the various shifts resulting from conflicts such as the Great Northern War, areas which had been in dispute shifted into Muscovite jurisdiction.


The boundary of Lithuania in 1635 was far to the east of the 1770 boundary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth_1635.png
In the 1630s, the border of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth extended as far east as Smolensk, and its territory encompassed all three of the modern Baltic states, as well as all of Ukraine and Belarus. The gradual disintegration of the Commonwealth began in the last decades of the 17th century, and by the end of the reign of Peter the Great, the border had moved considerably farther to the west.

Thus, the decrees of the Synods of 1665 and 1666 would have had no effect outside of Muscovite territory, and the pre-Nikonian books would have continued in use, until such time as new areas of Polish-Lithuanian territory were absorbed by Moscow. The ensuing reorganization of ecclesiastical jurisdictions would have resulted in some dioceses where the pre-Nikonian books were used, and others where the Nikonian books had been in use for several decades. The Russian government, the arm by which Church decrees were enforced, would then have responded by making the Nikonian books mandatory within the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.
© The Byzantine Forum