Ukrainian Orthodox use violence against Orthodox
NEW CONFLICTS BETWEEN MOSCOW AND KIEV PATRIARCHATES
Religiia v Rossii, 28 May 2002

On Sunday seven priests of the Moscow patriarchate seized the St. Nicholas'
church of the Kievan patriarchate in Poltava and conducted a service there.
The entrance to the church was blocked by a group of militant young people.
They arrived by microbus, which bore Kiev state numbers, and established a
living barricade in front of the church door and, using physical force, did
not allow priests and parishioners to enter the church nor allow those
already in the church to exit. They beat the priest of the St. Panteleimon's
church of the Kievan patriarchate, Fr Grigory, after which he was
hospitalized.

A report from members of the parish of St. Nicholas' church noted that all of
this happened in the presence of a squad of police headed by the deputy chief
of the Poltava city department of MVD and a representative of the Department
for Religious Affairs of the Poltava provincial administration, Viacheslav
Perevariukh, who did not intervene in the events. In connection with this,
members of the parish appealed by open letter to Ukrainian President Kuchma
and Prime Ministry Kinakh. They asked from protection from the encroachments
of the Moscow patriarchate, info-NEWS reports. (tr. by PDS, posted 29 May
2002)

Russia Religion News Current News Items


Oh boy!

What a glorious model for Christian charity and brotherly accord!

ALity

It is obvious how much control Moscow unfortunatly has in Ukraine both politically and spiritually. These 7 'priests' belong to the same church that has ownership of the Percheska Lavra and the Pochayiv Lavra and Icon, plus numerous other holy shrines in Ukraine. What a sad day in Poltava.

See how they love one another...the continuing influence of the Moscow Patriarchate, even to the point of violence on "opposing" jurisdictions, shows their true colors - they want (KP) parishes, even if they have to get them by force. Sad commentary on Orthodox Christianity in the Ukraine.

Bozhe velikyj edinjy...Rus-Ukrainu khrani

Diak said: "See how they love one another...the continuing influence of the Moscow Patriarchate, even to the point of violence on "opposing" jurisdictions, shows their true colors"

Amen. You hit it on the spot. Their colors are flying now, you can see them choking Ukraine.

The MP is as much of a Soviet "Church" as ever, it just has a new face. After all, that kind of inner-conscience does not change with geopolitics, only the outward appearance.

The MP is as power hungry and indescrimenent as the Phanar.

Christ is Risen!

The Moscow patrirachate continues to have problems accepting that Imperial and Soviet Russia is no more. In its place are many independent Nations linked by a common history and religion for the most part. The failure of the MP to grant true autonomy to the Ukraine will always stand in the way. I believe that if autonomy was granted and all the various canonical and uncanonical churches met together in a single national binding synod, a national Patriarch could be elected ending the Ukraine Schism then the Ukraninian Catholics and the Ukranian Orthodox could start to realistically work out their issues.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

[ 05-31-2002: Message edited by: Thomas ]

Christos Voskres!

There will not likely be interjurisdictional peace amongst the Orthodox in Ukraine as long as the MP has a strong presence. Since Christianity was spread from Kyiv, from the time of the baptism of St. Volodymyr and even before him with St. Olha, Dyr and Askold, and spread from there to other places (including Novgorod, Vladimir-on the-Klyazma, and later Moscow) the MP has a deep and vested interest in maintaining its control of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church not only because of power and the desire to control property but also thus "claiming" the patrimony of the Kyivan tradition. But some of us know better.
Subdeacon Randolph, a sinner

Thomas -

Well said. Bravo my boy!

So why is the Patriarch of Constantinople and the reset of "united" Orthodoxy not granting Ukraine what is par for the course for every other national Orthodox Church: A national Patriarchate for a national Church?

Does world Orthodoxy still have that authority, or better stated, capability (power)?

ALity

Good point ALity. Constantinople would intervene for the small Estonian church (for which Constantinople was temporarily excommunicated by Moscow) but will not intervene after repeated requests by both the Autocephalous and Kyivan Patriarchate in Ukraine. The Autocephalous and KP had even had some preliminary discussions on reorginazation in the event Constantinople came through and they could unite. Constantinople is still afraid of Moscow, I guess...

Dear Friends,

I just wanted to thank not only our Ukrainian Catholic posters, but also and especially the Orthodox Christians, including OrthodoxyorDeath, for responding in the positive way you did to this reported event in Ukraine.

I often get lambasted for being narrowly nationalistic, ethnocentric, anti-canonical, anti-Russian etc. whenever I raise these issues.

I pray that the Ukrainian Orthodox in Ukraine are united in one Patriarchate that is both canonical AND free of any subservient tie to Moscow.

Would that the Ukrainian government assist the Ukrainian Orthodox in achieving this, rather than demonstrating its usual indifference to the Church issue.

Alex

Dear Diak,

I can't help wondering about what it is that the Russian government supports the Moscow Patriarchate, the Estonian government supports the Estonian Orthodox Church, but the Ukrainian government seems to be indifferent to the Church issue in its own backyard?

Like Shevchenko in his poem, "Veliky Lyokh" the blame for most of this rests with our own people.

Alex

The Russian Orthodox Church is more than one thousand years old. According to tradition, St. Andrew the First Called, while preaching the gospel, stopped at the Kievan hills to bless the future city of Kiev. The fact that Russia had among her neighbors a powerful Christian state, the Byzantine Empire, very much contributed to the spread of Christianity in it. The south of Russia was blessed with the work of Sts Cyril and Methodius Equal to the Apostles, the Illuminators of the Slavs. In 954 Princess Olga of Kiev was baptized. All this paved the way for the greatest events in the history of the Russian people, namely, the baptism of Prince Vladimir and the Baptism of Russia in 988.

In the pre-Tartar period of its history The Russian Church was one of the metropolitanates of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The metropolitan at the head of the Church was appointed by the Patriarchate of Constantinople from among the Greeks, but in 1051 Russian-born Metropolitan Illarion, one of the most educated men of his time, was installed to the primatial see.

Majestic churches began to be built in the 10th century. Monasteries began to develop in the 11th century. St. Anthony of the Caves brought the traditions of Athonian monasticism to Russia in 1051. He founded the famous Monastery of the Caves in Kiev which was to become the center of religious life in Old Russia. Monasteries played a tremendous role in Russia. The greatest service they did to the Russian people, apart from their purely spiritual work, was that they were major centers of education. In particular, monasteries recorded in their chronicles all the major historical events in the life of the Russian people. Flourishing in monasteries were icon-painting and literary art. They were also those who translated into Russian various theological, historical and literary works.

In the 12th century, the period of feudal divisions, the Russian Church remained the only bearer of the idea of unity of the Russian people, resisting the centrifugal aspirations and feudal strife among Russian princes. Even the Tartar invasion, this greatest ever misfortune that struck Russia in the 13th century, failed to break the Russian Church. The Church managed to survive as a real force and was the comforter of the people in their plight. It made a great spiritual, material and moral contribution to the restoration of the political unity of Russia as a guarantee of its future victory over the invaders.

Divided Russian principalities began to unite around Moscow in the 14th century. The Russian Orthodox Church continued to play an important role in the revival of unified Russia. Outstanding Russian bishops acted as spiritual guides and assistants to the Princes of Moscow. St. Metropolitan Alexis (1354-1378) educated Prince Dimitry Donskoy. He, just as St. Metropolitan Jonas (1448-1471) later, by the power of his authority helped the Prince of Moscow to put an end to the feudal discords and preserve the unity of the state. St. Sergius of Radonezh, a great ascetic of the Russian Church, gave his blessing to Prince Dimitry Donskoy to fight the Kulikovo Battle which made the beginning of the liberation of Russia from the invaders.

Monasteries made a great contribution to the preservation of the Russian national self-consciousness and identity during the Tatar yoke and in the times of Western influences. The 13th century saw the foundation of the Pochayev Laura. This monastery and its holy abbot Ioann (Zhelezo) did much to assert Orthodoxy in western Russian lands. Some 180 new monasteries were founded in the period from the 14th to the mid-15th century in Russia. Among major events in the history of old Russian monasticism was the foundation of the Trinity Monastery by St. Sergius of Radonezh (c. 1334). It is in this glorious monastery that St. Andrew Rublev developed his marvelous talent at icon-painting.

Liberating itself from the invaders, the Russian state gathered strength and so did the Russian Orthodox Church. In 1448, not long before the Byzantine Empire collapsed, the Russian Church became independent from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Metropolitan Jonas, installed by the Council of Russian bishops in 1448, was given the title of Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia.

The growing might of the Russian state contributed also to the growing authority of the Autocephalous Russian Church. In 1589 Metropolitan Job of Moscow became the first Russian patriarch. Eastern patriarchs recognized the Russian patriarch as the fifth in honor.

The beginning of the 17th century proved to be a hard time for Russia. The Poles and Swedes invaded Russia from the west. At this time of trouble the Russian Church fulfilled its patriotic duty before the people with honor, as it did before. Patriarch Germogen (1606-1612), an ardent patriot of Russia who was to be tortured to death by the invaders, was the spiritual leaders of the mass levy led by Minin and Pozharsky. The heroic defense of St. Sergius' Monastery of the Trinity from the Swedes and Poles between 1608-1610 has been inscribed for ever in the chronicle of the Russian state and the Russian Church.

In the period after the invaders were driven away from Russia, the Russian Church was engaged in one of the most important of its internal tasks, namely, introducing corrections into its service books and rites. A great contribution to this was made by Patriarch Nikon, a bright personality and outstanding church reformer. Some clergymen and lay people did not understand and did not accept the liturgical reforms introduced by Patriarch Nikon and refused to obey the church authority. This was how the Old Believers' schism emerged.

The beginning of the 18th century in Russia was marked by radical reforms carried out by Peter I. The reforms did not leave the Russian Church untouched as after the death of Patriarch Adrian in 1700 Peter I delayed the election of the new Primate of the Church and established in 1721 a collective supreme administration in the Church known as the Holy and Governing Synod. The Synod remained the supreme church body in the Russian Church for almost two centuries.

In the Synodal period of its history from 1721 to 1917, the Russian Church paid a special attention to the development of religious education and mission in provinces. Old churches were restored and new churches were built. The beginning of the 19th century was marked by the work of brilliant theologians. Russian theologians also did much to develop such sciences as history, linguistics and Oriental studies.

The 20th century produced the great models of Russian sanctity, such as St. Seraphim of Sarov and the Starets of the Optina and Glinsky Hermitages.

Early in the 20th century the Russian Church began preparations for convening an All-Russian Council. But it was to be convened only after the 1917 Revolution. Among its major actions was the restoration of the patriarchal office in the Russian Church. The Council elected Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (1917-1925).

St. Tikhon of Moscow exerted every effort to calm the destructive passions kindled up by the revolution. The Message of the Holy Council issued on 11 November 1917 says in particular, "Instead of a new social order promised by the false teachers we see a bloody strife among the builders, instead of peace and brotherhood among the peoples - a confusion of languages and a bitter hatred among brothers. People who have forgotten God are attacking one another like hungry wolves... Abandon the senseless and godless dream of the false teachers who call to realize universal brotherhood through universal strife! Come back to the way of Christ!"

For Bolsheviks who came to power in 1917 the Russian Orthodox Church was an ideological enemy a priori, as being an institutional part of tsarist Russia it resolutely defended the old regime also after the October revolution. This is why so many bishops, thousands of clergymen, monks and nuns as well as lay people were subjected to repression up to execution and murder striking in its brutality.

When in 1921-1922 the Soviet government demanded that church valuables be given in aid to the population starving because of the failure of crops in 1921, a fateful conflict erupted between the Church and the new authorities who decided to use this situation to demolish the Church to the end. By the beginning of World War II the church structure was almost completely destroyed throughout the country. There were only a few bishops who remained free and who could perform their duties. Some bishops managed to survive in remote parts or under the disguise of priests. Only a few hundred churches were opened for services throughout the Soviet Union. Most of the clergy were either imprisoned in concentration camps where many of them perished or hid in catacombs, while thousands of priests changed occupation.

The catastrophic course of combat in the beginning of World War II forced Stalin to mobilize all the national resources for defense, including the Russian Orthodox Church as the people's moral force. Without delay churches were opened for services, and clergy including bishops were released from prisons. The Russian Church did not limit itself to giving spiritual and moral support to the motherland in danger. It also rendered material aid by providing funds for all kinds of things up to army uniform. Its greatest contribution, however, was expressed in financing the St. Dimitry Donskoy Tank Column and the St. Alexander Nevsky Squadron.

This process, which can be described as a rapprochement between Church and state in a "patriotic union", culminated in Stalin's receiving on September 4, 1943 Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Sergiy Stragorodsky and Metropolitan Alexy Simansky and Nikolay Yarushevich.

Since that historic moment a "thaw" began in relations between church and state. The Church, however, remained always under state control and any attempts to spread its work outside its walls were met with a strong rebuff including administrative sanctions.

The Russian Orthodox Church was in a hard situation during the so called 'Khrushchev's thaw" as well when thousands of churches throughout the Soviet Union were closed "for ideological reasons".

The celebrations devoted to the Millennium of the Baptism of Russia, which acquired a national importance, gave a fresh impetus to church-state relations and compelled the powers that be to begin a dialogue with the Church, building these relations on the basis of recognition of the great historical role it had played in the fortunes of the Motherland and its contribution to the formation of the nation's moral traditions.

I found this on the "Brief History" tab on the website for the Russian Orthodox Church. I think it echoes quite nicely, especially in the begining, the statements by Diak: That Russia claims the history and patrimony of Kyiv-Rus(Ukraine) as exclusively their's.

According to this wonderful piece of fiction, there is no such thing as Ukraine. No wonder they don't acknowledge our churches. We belong to them! I wish somebody would have told me . . .


The saddest in this snafu, is that to the commoner, without the knowledge of the complex history of theologians and academics, such ridiculous acts of unchristian behavior are seen for what they are, and leads many soul searching Ukrianians into non-traditional faiths.

Such division only plays to the benefit of the hands of the Protestant soul-stealers in Ukraine with their quick "insta-burger", drive thru, 30 seconds or less, salvation theology.

While the Moscow Patriarchate is so concerned with restoring their "Third Rome" worldly empire, they lose their moral authority, by neglecting the huge spiritual crisis in the former Soviet Union. And to add to that, they further hamper the efforts of the TRUE Ukrainian Orthodox churches by embroiling them in their political machineations. And this is so sad, becasue ultimately, the TRUE faith suffers.

ALity

My history book from last year said that Russia recieved Christianity from St. Vladimir and all of that. The whole section of Russia did not even mention Ukraine. They talked about "Kiev" a little bit and the Russian "Cossaks." Its jist that Ukraine hasn't been free for so many years, that people are igonorant.

ALity, great post. Amen.

Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky (he who loves God?) conducted a pernicious sack of Kyiv in 1169 from Suzdal. Churches, monasteries were sacked and the miraculous icon of the Mother of God was stolen from Vyshorod near Kyiv and moved to Vladimir on the Klyazma, one of Andrew's protected city-fortresses. It is now known by most people as the "Mother of God of Vladimir".

Picture it - here's beautiful Golden Kyiv being sacked by an "Orthodox Prince" back in 1169 - just over 100 years after the repose of Yaroslov Mudrij (the Wise). Not the barbaric Tartars, but by a "Christian" prince. Icons, books, vestments, bells, gold were stolen, churches set afire...etc.

The capitol was moved shortly thereafter from Vladimir to a spot on the Moskva river (guess what it was called?). So from the beginning of the Muscovite state its leaders have had the Kyivan church in its covetous sights. Just a bit of history to put this in perspective.
Subdeacon Randolph, a sinner

Yes, that is for sure Diak. So what do we do? We continue the struggle for our patrimony in peace in and in the true Christian spirit of charity.

It is so, so sad when you really look at it and learn the truth. Perhaps that is part and parcel of why Blessed Metropolitan Andrew saw something troublesome in the Russian Orthodox Church. It is, my opinion, the only apostolic church that I know of conceived and born in schism. . .

Belssed Metropolitan Andrew pray for us!

ALity

ps - thank you uc for the kind compliment. Yes you are right, people just don't know about us, for we are a conquered and forgotten,mysterious people . . . all the more reason why we should share this history and faith with others . . . and there is no better way to do this than to go "english" in our churches and convert the United States, the Roman Empire of the third millenium. . .

Vision baby . . . vision . . . think outta da box!

Yes, we must proceed forward in our kenotic mission, continually extending our hand in Christian charity, even if the response is a clenched fist. Patriach Lubomyr I believe has the vision and the historical background to understand the Kyivan church and we must always pray that we have the charity and mercy...

ALiy, yet another good point about Metropolitan Sheptytsky's issues with the Russians. But he never lost sight of the fact that the Russians were historically descended from the Kyivan Church and therefore he never abandoned them...That was a motivation for Metropolitan Sheptysky to expend so much effort on the fledgling Russian Catholic Church supporting Frs. Tolstoy, Fedorov, Deubner, and Susalev (who was an Old Believer priest who came into the Greek Catholic Church and continued to use the Old Ritual), Korolevsky and others...often in spite of absolutely impossible circumstances... the Russian Catholic Church is worthy of a whole different discussion sometime.
Through the prayers of the Servant of God Andrey Sheptytsky, O Lord have mercy on us.
Subdeacon Randolph, a sinner

Dear Friends,

This is truly a sad thing, to be sure.

As for the historical perspective, we must also realize that what is known as "Ukraine" in recent history, was actually "Rus'" or "Kyivan Rus'" previously.

It was only with Peter I that the term for today's Russians "Muscovy" and "Muscovite," were dropped and "Rus'" and "Russian" were adopted.

In fact, it was Peter I's Ukrainian advisers who convinced him to adopt "Rus'" and so Peter ordered all his embassies to declare themselves "Russians" and to ask that the western European powers, including the Vatican, cease calling them Muscovites.

Once the name was changed, the historical record was effectively taken over as well.

Taras Shevchenko in his poem "Velykyj Loch" blamed the Ukrainians themselves for their own woes.

Yes, the Russians attacked that church in Poltava - but where was the Ukrainian police and other authorities? They looked on without doing anything.

And who do we blame for the fact of our own internal divisions? Poland basically has one Church, and Russia has one.

We continue to live out the historical ecclesial divisions that were forced on our ancestors.

I don't have an answer. But what happened in history still continues to "beat us" today.

Alex

Dear Diak,

In actual fact, historical research today seems to be indicating that Andrew Boholiubsky was no where near Kyiv at the time he was said to have been sacking it.

And according to Met. Ilarion Ohienko, Kyiv was done in through "brotherly warfare" by a group of Ukrainian princes from the west who attacked Kyiv as a result of administrative jealousy, very much in the tradition of warfare among city-states (see Ohienko's "Canonization of Saints in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church").

Andrew Boholiubsky is also included in the calendar of Saints of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as a saint of northern Kyivan Rus'!

That he took the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God is a fact. That he took it from Vyshorod to try and protect it against destruction by the ongoing attacks on Kyiv is another.

The most ancient Chronicles relate Andrew's deep piety, especially toward the Mother of God, his visions of Her etc.

The Ukrainian Orthodox at least never saw in him an enemy, but a pious ruler of Kyivan Rus'.

I know this goes against so much of what we have come to believe about him, but there we have it.

Alex

Alex, I've seen too much research the other way on Prince Bogolybsky...we'll have to agree to disagree, although to a certain extent I might agree that the jury is out as many of the chronicle fragments are either missing or contradictory.

I think that the sack of Kyiv attributed to Bogolybsky is the beginning of the pattern of behavior which was a concerted effort to deprive Kyiv of its rightful place civilly and ecclesiastically.

I don't buy the removal of the Vyshorodska Bozhamati as a protective measure, either. It was a spitirual treasure par excellence of Kyivan Rus, very deeply venerated by the Kyivan faithful, a very important religious symbol of her identity, and its removal to Vladimir and eventually Moscow is iconic (no pun intended) of the attempt to remove the genuine spiritual and ecclesiological patrimony of the Kyivan Church.

It was stolen, the church sacked, the icon taken to Vladimir. By Christians. The desire of the Muscovite principality (including Suzdal and Vladimir) to usurp the power and rightful patrimony of Kyiv happened way before Peter I.

In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. One God, Amen.

Friends,

This is a sad development. It proves that Greater Russianism is alive and well, and breathes in the Church. Yet at the same time, I must confess how fascinated I am by the commentary of ALity, Diak, Alex, and ukrainiancatholic.

I will confess my ignorance as a foreigner who used to credit Kyiv monastic accomplishments to the Russians until I read some of your contributions. Worse still, is that it is the present Capital City of Ukraine and there I was crediting it to the Russians. I have the bad habit of concentrating on the history of Russia from 1905 to about 1927. Prompted by some of your comments I pulled some books (dealing with older themes) off my shelf and boy do I feel ignorant as can be. I am astounded that Ukrainians can arrogantly be written out of history by Russians as in that article posted by ALity. I guess His-story vs. History affects more people than my own. I promise to use my free time this summer to read more on the Ukrainian History as opposed to the Muscovite His-Story.

It double saddens me that, as ALity pointed out, quick fix Pentecostal hucksters are coming in to scavenge souls in peoples time of weakness and stress. But it does not worry me, with the arsenal of Kyiv as a background I don't see that trendy pente move going anywhere except out of style. But ALity I am confused on one point, how is it that you think that going “English” will change this? If experience elsewhere can be generalized (and it usually can) then many Ukrainians protestants are already plugged into English. They should have gotten "scholarships' and are taking "telenet' courses or pre-tapped courses by some Protestant educational institution right here in America! Considering that Americanization tends to spoil whatever it Americanizes (Tacos and Italian food for instance ) why not try something new and have Americans emerge from their mono-lingual ignorance and learn another language?

But the point of inspiration in all of your posts comes from the fact that in spite of this treatment and persecution by the Russians you are 1) not generalizing them all and 2) still praying for them that these problems can be overcome. All liturgy and schematics aside, that is my definition of a Christian.

That the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ—I Peter 1:7

May God Have Mercy on us All

Aklie Semaet

[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: Aklie Semaet ]

Dear Diak,

St Andrew Boholiubsky is, as we know, honoured as a Ukrainian saint by the Ukrainian Orthodox - and others.

That he was of the Kyivan Royal line is something about which there can be no doubt. Princes do make wars, as did St Volodymyr and others who are also raised to the altars.

So we are faced with a dual tradition here. One of these is a religious tradition that sees Andrew as a spiritual Prince operating from good motives.

Again, and as you say, the jury is out. Ukrainian Catholics are normally biased against him, no matter what. I know I was and, to a great extent, I'm still not crazy about him.

That doesn't mean that others cannot venerate him for valid spiritual and historical reasons and that we shouldn't respect that.

Andrew was the one who finally got Constantinople to canonize Sts. Volodymyr and Olha as saints, something New Rome was dragging its feet on. The feast of August 1/14 of the Merciful Saviour and the Mother of God was actually ordered by him, and it was he who established the feast of the Protection throughout Rus'.

We are used to seeing things in terms of nation-states today.

I don't know (and again, "don't know") if we can apply that same paradigm to Andrew's taking of the icon of Vyshorod to Vladimir.

Then the entire area was one big Rus'. Andrew considered himself as much a part of a still homogeneous Rus' cultural identity as did everyone else, including the Kyivans.

The Kyivans also were not angels. For example, St Ihor Olhovych was ill-treated at their hands and killed within the city, even though later the same Kyivan Church glorified him a saint.

Certainly, the Vladimir/Vyshorod Icon of the Mother of God later became a national patron of Muscovite Rus' and became, for all intents and purposes, a "Russian Icon" even though it was formerly the holiest Shrine of Kyiv before which even pagan Kyivan princes prayed (e.g. Ihor, husband of St Olha on his return from imprisonment by the Polovtsi).

The Black Madonna of Czestochowa was similarly enshrined in Kyiv and was later brought to Belz near the border with Poland.

Vladislav Opolskie took that icon to Czestochowa, as we know.

In the 15th century, the Orthodox Ukrainian Prince St. Theodore Ostrozhky, while on a peace mission in Poland, saw the icon and immediately proceeded to try and take it off the wall.

He was arrested and tried for "blasphemy" by the Poles.

During his trial, he said that the icon was from Rus' and he was only trying to reclaim it to take it home.

The icon of Mariapoch in St Stefan's Kirche in Vienna is a similar case and there are other icons of Kyivan Rus' that have met a similar fate.

Some have said that the removal of the people's icons and shrines to a foreign land, usually the land of the oppressing country, was a way to subdue the oppressed people, as they had to go on pilgrimage to their icons in the foreign lands.

And because the icon was in the land of the oppressor, somehow, in the people's consciousness, the enemy state became less of an enemy.

So political motives dominate throughout, to be sure.

I'm just not so sure about the motives of St Andrew Boholiubsky at a time when Rus' was united and the Russian/Ukrainian situation had not yet arisen.

Alex

Dear Aklie,

Selam!

How about an Ethiopian for Patriarch of Kyiv?

You would get my vote.

At the present, there will be two histories of the relations between Ukraine and Russia, written by historians of both nations.

The two histories won't be exactly unbiased. The Russians will continue to submit that their view is the "objective" one, and the Ukrainians will contine to cry "foul" over Russian imperialism, by both Church and State, for several hundred years.

If Ukrainians can defend their own history and institutions from Russian influence and control, while, at the same time, appreciating and respecting their neighbours within the context of Christian love, and vice-versa, we will all be way ahead of the game.

But that won't happen just yet.

Alex

Here is another recent incedent, although a month older in the birthplace of Patriarch Filaret. The responses of the UOC-MP are interesting considering the use of words and their emotive aspect of the response.

Any true believing Russian Orthodox Christian should be ashamed of their Church and publically condemn their leaders.

ALity

Alkie -

This was more a message to uc, whom I have dome longstanding discussions with about the nature of the Church.

I am sure you are aware of nationalism vs. Chritianity in the East . . . you could'nt be an Eastern Christian without it.

As a part of the Catolic Church, we are called to evangelize all nations, not just Ukrainians. This is a mandate from our Lord Jesus Christ!
In the USA, that would mean that while continuing to serve Ukrainian immigrants, the Church, in MHO, should focus it's liturgical life in the English Language and seek to convert Americans, from all nations, who find the Kyivan spiirituality speaking to their soul.

This actually has a desirable consequence for Ukrainians who put their nationality above their faith. Especially concerning this forum: It means that if our church was to begin a successful evangelization effort, converts would learn the history of the Kyivan Church, gradually, from the Ukrainian perspective. This would do more good for the advance of secular Ukrainian interests than anything else! And, it would more fittingly be a blessing for doing the truly right thing first, spreading the gospel.

The Russian viewpoint is generally accepted to the west, because it was propagandized to the west. By doing the right thing, preaching the gospel, in our tradition, there is a corollary benefit. And that benefit is that converts will learn "Kyiv-ite" interpretation of Kyivan Rus'.

One need only look at the historical perspective of Kiev, by the American OCA, which propagates the Russian version of Kievan-Rus.

Alas, as Alex and Taras Shevchenko spoke before him, and myself, Ukrainians are the reason for much of their woes. Our inward pride and utter dysfunctional ability to be divided and unable to work together for our common good, is the mark of a defeated and conquered people. The hope of our Church, and extension culture, are in it's leaders and faithful from the West, who are able to provide for themselves and learn the truth of their patrimony. Looking at Ukraine, our Patriarch, is (was) and American and grew up in the west and the head of perhaps the most promising organization in Ukraine, the LTA is headed and was resurrected by an American priest, Fr. Borys Gudziak. There were many in our church who felt such an organization would lead people away from the faith and did not want to support it in it's early stages (1992). So, although long winded as I am, I think I was able to explain my statments.

Now await, Alkie, and watch Ukrainian Jurisprudence in action, as my Ukrainian Catholic "comrades" on this forum hurl "village-polemic" hand grenades at my comments!

O Lord, Jesus Christ, have mercy on me.

ALity

Dear Alex,
Pardon me if I've misunderstood you, but if not, I must take issue with your apparent assertion that the Marijapovch Mother of God has any connection to Kyivan Rus'.

It originated in the plains of northeastern Hungary, in a magyarized Rusyn village that is today still within the borders of Hungary. Even if one considers that this area was loosely (but not territorially) part of Subcarpathian Rus', that area since the 17th-century time of the icon's creation has had no relationship -- political or otherwise -- with Kyivan Rus'. Even the claims of Subcarpathian Rus's historical political ties with Kyivan Rus' are dubious.

http://www.carpatho-rusyn.org/spirit/marija.htm

"This was more a message to uc, whom I have dome longstanding discussions with about the nature of the Church."

As always you catch me hook, line, and sinker. Thanks to you ALity and along with others you are slowly changing my stubborn views.

"I am sure you are aware of nationalism vs. Chritianity in the East . . . you could'nt be an Eastern Christian without it. "

But this is sometimes a big drawer of converts. I know of people who attend Russian or Greek or Slavic or Irish ethnic churches who really are attracted by the culture and their form of worship.

"As a part of the Catolic Church, we are called to evangelize all nations, not just Ukrainians."

My theory is we need to claim back all of the baby boomers and people of my parents generation back. In most Ukrainian churches you will see 80% elderly, and a few families with small kids. Very very few in between. So lets reclaim that boomer generation. I know of over 15 Ukrainian Catholics that go to the RC church by my house. I am sure we could have at least 2 or 3 more parishes here in San Diego if all the cradles were active. So lets evangilize our once own first.

"This actually has a desirable consequence for Ukrainians who put their nationality above their faith. "

Well thats why halls are social clubs most of the time. We have people who come for the last 10 minutes of Liturgy, and then stay in the hall for an hour or two.

"Especially concerning this forum: It means that if our church was to begin a successful evangelization effort, converts would learn the history of the Kyivan Church, gradually, from the Ukrainian perspective. This would do more good for the advance of secular Ukrainian interests than anything else! And, it would more fittingly be a blessing for doing the truly right thing first, spreading the gospel."

Good point. Amen.

"The Russian viewpoint is generally accepted to the west, because it was propagandized to the west. By doing the right thing, preaching the gospel, in our tradition, there is a corollary benefit. And that benefit is that converts will learn "Kyiv-ite" interpretation of Kyivan Rus'."

Amen again.

"One need only look at the historical perspective of Kiev, by the American OCA, which propagates the Russian version of Kievan-Rus. "

For example, the Holy Icon of our Lady of "Pochaev" was in the U.S. for Memorial Day.

"Alas, as Alex and Taras Shevchenko spoke before him, and myself, Ukrainians are the reason for much of their woes. "



"Our inward pride and utter dysfunctional ability to be divided and unable to work together for our common good, is the mark of a defeated and conquered people. The hope of our Church, and extension culture, are in it's leaders and faithful from the West, who are able to provide for themselves and learn the truth of their patrimony. Looking at Ukraine, our Patriarch, is (was) and American and grew up in the west and the head of perhaps the most promising organization in Ukraine, the LTA is headed and was resurrected by an American priest, Fr. Borys Gudziak. There were many in our church who felt such an organization would lead people away from the faith and did not want to support it in it's early stages (1992). So, although long winded as I am."
"I think I was able to explain my statments."

Doing so well.

"Now await, Alkie, and watch Ukrainian Jurisprudence in action, as my Ukrainian Catholic "comrades" on this forum hurl "village-polemic" hand grenades at my comments! "

Innnncoooommmmmiinnnnngggg!!!!

"O Lord, Jesus Christ, have mercy on me. "

And our church, bishops, priests, clergy, and faithful.


ukrainiancatholic
p.s. i put my ethnicity before my faith :rolleyes:

Aklie, thanks for your kind words. We Ukies love to talk about what was, might of been, could of been, should of been...

There is an old saying in Ukrainian that when you have two Ukrainians, you have three opinions. But when you have three Ukrainians, you have a new choir

Aklie, which Ethiopian church do you belong to and who is your current Abuna? I raise sheep for a hobby and all of my lamb customers are the Ethiopian Orthodox community in Kansas City...they say it is hard to get good lamb, and they have been coming to me for years. Slaughtering time has become a great tradition between my family and the Ethiopian community. I am so impressed by the deep connection with the Semitic traditions that the Ethiopians have maintained.

Me and my family have become great friends with them. And hands down, Sidamo and Yrgacheffe coffee is proof of the existence of God. I live misir watt, injeera and quanta ferfer, with lots of berbere...better stop, I'm torturing myself.
Take care and God bless
Subdeacon Randolph, a sinner

Christos Voskres!

ALity, some good points. Borys Gudziak has been a shot in the arm for the LTA, although Father Dimid wasn't too bad, was wonderful spiritually, although I think Fr. Gudziak has the vision to take the LTA to the next step. I had to read his book on the Union of Brest for my diaconal program - if you want some light reading (it's a big book) go for it. Also Hlib Lonchyna, a wonderful Studite from Steubenville, Ohio, is auxiliary of L'Viv. I was hoping we would get him for St. Nicholas in Chicago, but it looks like Patriarch Lubomyr wants to keep him close.

There comes a time when an equation is reduced to an empirical relationship. MP has a need to claim and usurp the patrimony of Kyiv, precisely because Kyiv is where the ecclesiological, liturgical, and theological tradition of MP lies. If MP doesn't control Kyiv, then, it would have to recognize (gasp) that some other Ukrainian ecclesiological entity had ownership and control of the land and place where St. Volodymyr and Olha lived, reigned, and established the Kyivan Church from which the Church of Moscow must historically recognize its origin. This kind of violence perpetrated directly or indirectly by the MP isn't going to stop as long as there is "competition" (as MP sees it) from the KP. I hope and pray when Patriarch Lubomyr moves the Patriarchate to Kyiv we will be spared this kind of behavior.

The Kyivan Tradition is universal. It can be experienced in any language. It is not the ethnic or linguistic property of the Ukrainians. ALity, make sure you visit St. Elias in Brampton, Ontario when you are up that way and you will see that the Kyivan Tradition works beautifully in English as well. I take my family up there and to the Studites in Orangeville (only an hour or so from St. Elias) at least once a year for charging the spiritual batteries.

Subdeacon Randolph, a sinner

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One God, Amen.

Alex,

Don't worry about Russian historians. Diasporan Ukrainian social scientists that are based in North America should take full advantage of their situation and write books and articles from the different University Presses right here in America and Canada. They should also make trips back home and make educational documentaries (in English, French, etc.) that document and illustrate the true history of Kyiv. Trust me I know from reading the debates against Soviet era archaeologists that Russian myth makers are easy to defeat so long as you stick to the facts.

ALity

There is no DIRECT contradiction between nationalism and Christianity. Nationalism has been present in Christianity from the beginning. Just think about it for a minute, those pious Christians in the Apostolic Church in Jerusalem were also Jews and were not too fond about being ruled by Romans. There were also members of the Zealot organization in the Jerusalem Church (even one of them, Simeon, was a Disciple). This, while at the same time that they were supportive of the evangelization efforts of the gentiles. Not only that, but the Evangelization of the Romans, the very gentiles that oppressed them! But in the end, every nationalism has its inherent flaws and limitations, even its dangers.

There is also nothing inherently negative about reaching out to ones own people before trying to reach out to the rest of the world. The remark of Christ himself to the Greek woman who asked that her daughter be cleansed (Mark 7:25-30) is a case in point. UC said that halls are social clubs most of the time. We have people who come for the last 10 minutes of Liturgy, and then stay in the hall for an hour or two The Hall (among other Ukrainians) seems to be the best place to start this evangelization effort.

Subdeacon Randolph,

Yes, Ethiopians will travel 30 to 50 miles to by freshly (and Christian) slaughtered meat just to eat a burger at McDonalds the next day. Going to the supermarket and buying pre-packaged meat parts in the same way you by spare car parts does not sit well with most. Plus, what if the butcher in the supermarket is a Muslim? You wouldn't want to have to go and confess for that would you? By the way, where did you get the Qwanta (homemade beef jerky)? I hope you hid it in your closet and didn't let anyone know you had some because you will get an unusual amount of guest randomly showing up at your house (quietly expecting to be offered some). You know that is a rare commodity here? I almost got three bags of it here in January but the Customs agent asked me specifically did I have any “dry meat.” I tried to, but I could not bring my self to lie and well he seized it complaining that it would bring foot and mouth disease to America (I personally think they are paranoid and over reacting.)

Anyway, I belong to the normal canonical Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church which has its headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Our Abune is His Holiness Paulos, Patriarch of Ethiopia and Echegue of the See of St. Tekle Haymanot. Now if the Holy Synod removes him then I will be loyal to whatever new person they install, but I aint breaking communion with no one over politics. Maybe 90% of the Ethiopians you encounter in Texas will be opposed to him (without supporting anyone as an alternative) but if they bring the issue up with YOU ask them what good RELIGIOUS reason is there not to support the present Patriarch? I bet you they will not have one.

Now my question. What is the ethnic make up of these Ukraine Orthodox MP people? Are they not themselves Ukrainian?

May God Bless You All

Aklie Semaet

Dear Lemko,

The icon has no connection with historical Kyivan Rus' to be sure.

But it is a product of East Slavic iconography that is related to Kyivan Christianity loosely defined and not Latin Christianity.

It is also venerated as an Icon of the Kyivan Church and by Ukrainian Catholics especially.

Let's also remember that the cultural and religious influence of Kyivan Rus' is more pervasive than was once thought.

There were very close ties to Hungary between the Kyivan Church, for example. There is at least one known Hungarian Saint of the Kyivan Caves Lavra, St Moses the Hungarian, who was patron of youthful purity for centuries in Ukraine.

The Crown of St Steven is a Byzantine-style Crown with Old Slavonic lettering on it.

There are many other examples along these lines.

Kyivan Rus' was, when everything is said and done, a loose federation of different tribes or Plemya a number of which developed along different cultural lines outside the "mainstream" Kyivan culture.

But the pervasive influence was there and was felt as far west as in Germany, France and England, let alone the Carpathians.

Alex

[ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Selam Aklie!

Yes, you are right, and more and more scholars in Ukrainian studies are doing exactly as you say they should - which is a good thing!

In terms of ethnic make-up, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate is ethnically diverse, but with a strong Russian presence and cultural/political orientation.

This is not to say that this Church isn't sensitive to Ukrainian culture etc. But it could be much more sensitive.

Perhaps this will come about once everyone in it has fully realized Ukraine is an independent nation now.

Old imperialistic habits die hard. . .

Ah, darn it, there I go with my narrow Ukrainianism . . . and after I said I'd temper it down . . . some people are just incorrigible!

Alex

First, the subtle is often overlooked. Ukraine is a "nation" that belongs to the category of "all nations". We should be converting Ukrainians. Let's just remember that the majority of Ukrainians live in Ukraine.

Although I do not know for sure, but I would bet you, uc, that most of those baby boomers that used to go your UCC in SD are like all baby boomers in this country, very AMERICAN, they go to the RC, or Protestant Churches, becasue, one, it fits in with the mainstream culture and, two, it speaks to them better as human beings living in 21st century North Amerika. Our Churches in America tend to stay put in the time frame of early 20th century Polish-Galacia, and only those who seek to pyschologically transplant their mentality to a time gone by, find our churches appealing. Those who leave the church to fit into mainstream culture are GONE, don't waste your time. Those to whom have left becasue the church does not meet their needs, may come back, IF the church begins to better speak to the Americans they serve (With the exception of the fourth wave, we are all Americans, albiet ethnic Ukrainian).

The best way to bring people back is to offer them a church that can be theirs. By opening up the church to all people, you include all the disaffected.

ALity

Alex, what does this mean? "An icon of the Kyivan Church"? Is it a "stolen Ukrainian icon" as one Ukrainian website ("Ukrayinska ideya", now apparently defunct) claimed?

I've never seen the Marijapovch icon in any Ukrainian church in the United States, except one -- St. Michael's in Shenandoah, which out of about 500 Greek Catholic immigrant families who settled there had a whopping 5 Ukrainian families (yet is the "first Ukrainian Church in America").


St. Moses Uhryn ("of Hungary" -- not "the Hungarian") was no more a Magyar than was the village of Marijapovch at the time of the miraculous weeping. When St. Moses entered the monastery, there were no Magyar Byzantine Christians. He was undoubtedly a Slav, probably a White Croat, the ancestors of the Carpatho-Rusyns.

Christos Voskres!
Aklie - the eastern half of Ukraine is predominantly MP territory. These are Ukrainian people and Ukrainian clergy, but very russified. But many if not most will identify themselves as Ukrainian.

We have "adopted" a young lady from Dnipropetrovsk, a very large industrial center along the Dnipro River in southeastern Ukraine who is attending a small Benedictine Roman Catholic college near us. She came from a city of two million to a small Kansas town of 10,000 where people either thought she was Polish or Russian. Talk about homesick. One of her professors knew me and put us in touch, another whole story of itself...he called me and asked "Does Kravchenko sound Ukrainian?" and I replied "Does O'Riley sound Irish?" and she is like our adopted daughter now.

But the point (oh yes, there was one...) Russian is her first language, Ukrainian her second and English her third. At home her family speaks Russian. She speaks Ukrainian with a slightly Russian accent. In her part of Ukraine the MP has a 90% or greater control of all parishes. She however identifies herself as firmly Ukrainian and her descent is entirely Ukrainain. Her and I are both supporters of the young reformist candidate Yushchenko. But ecclesiologically she is obviously from her upbringing very pro-Muscovite.

She had a lot of bias against the Ukrainian Catholic Church as related to her by her MP priest. Many of the things were actually almost funny in their outlandishment and exxageration. I though I had heard everything...

But she went with us a few times to our small Ukrainian Catholic church, was very well welcomed, and now she attends when she can. Noone made her kneel and kiss a picture of the Pope, or other such bologna. Just made her feel at home and just hearing Ukrainain was so welcome for her. Sometimes one has to expereince something oneself to see what's really going on and not rely on someone else's description. It is also amazing what Chrisitan behavior can accomplish at the grass roots with loving dialogue instead of clubs and thugs. I didn't try to beat her down with any polemic, just "come and see"...

So the level of russification is quite deep in Eastern Ukraine, at least linguistically and ecclesiologically, but not to the level of completely erasing national and ethnic identity. There is still hope there. Take care and God bless
Subdeacon Randolph, a sinner

Dear Lemko,

I said, "As an Icon" in the same way that the Latin picture of Our Lady of the Scapular of Horodyschensk is honoured as an icon of the Ukrainian/Kyivan Church.

It belongs to the Eastern Church, not the Latin Church, which is my original point, although its Eastern roots are often ignored at St Stephen's.

The particular Carpathian style of icon-writing of which Mariapoch is an example is considered, by Ukrainians, as a particular form that is part of the historic heritage in which Ukrainians share as well.

It is not a widely popular icon among Ukrainians, to be sure. But neither are many others who enjoy a strong local cult, or else a cult in other Churches.

If your point is that the religious-cultural milieu from which this Icon derived is totally disconnected from any ties to Kyivan tradition, there are many who would dispute that.

Yes, St Moses the Hungarian was a Slav, just as Sts. Anthony, John and Eustace were Lithuanian Slavs under Olgerde and there are other examples.

"Hungarian" did not refer to his nationality, but to geography.

Historically, Hungary, like other countries, was not a uniracial or unicultural nation. What passed as "Hungarian" years back would not be so today, especially with respect to the Slavic influence and mix.

The Icon of Mariapoch was and is venerated by members of my family and friends who were and are Lemkos and Boykos.

It is often included in Ukrainian iconography books as an example of a particular branch of Ukrainian iconography.

There are Lemkos, Boykos and others who do consider themselves to be Ukrainian.

There are others who do not.

Both groups promote their own particular historiography to reflect their own prisms of self-understanding.

One may buy the Icon of Mariapoch in many Ukrainian stores, I've seen it everywhere, in people's homes, published icon collections. I've had one in my icon corner for 31 years.

Alex

[ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Dear Randolph,

Thank you for sharing that!

In fact, Russian was never historically considered a "foreign language" by many Ukrainians who would not be considered "Russified."

Modern Russian was developed with the help of many Ukrainian academics who also used a number of the rules of literary (as opposed to colloquial) Ukrainian grammar in establishing it.

I recently acquired a doctoral thesis about the impact of Ukrainian language and culture on Russia and will get to it soon - can't wait.

The Russian language has tended to become like English in that the language can be dissociated from the implied cultural identity.

Alex

Alex and Lemko -

Although the thread is most off topic . . .

I started reading a book I am sure you both know about. One of those rare books . . . John Slivka's History of the Greek Rite Catholics in Pannonia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Podkarpatska Rus' 863-1949

In his account of the Miraculous icon of Maria Poc he says:


When Alex mentions that the icon is an icon sharing in the traditions of the Kyivan Church, I think he means the common patrimony that both Churches share which is the Greek rite.

I know from your posts Lemko, that you are very proud of your ethnicity. You also appear very hostile to Ukrainians. Until 892 when the Magyars gained control to Podkarpatska Rus', this region was principality of Kyivan Rus'. With one thousand years of seperation and oppression from another power (Hungary) it is natural to manifest differences from the other Rusyns. Just as Galacian Rusyns, oppressed by Poles, developed different culutral tendencies. But still, there is so much that our traditions have in common, that it is very hard for me to come to any other conclusion than that we are a common nation of people, but most definately a different tribe!

Another interesting note on this icon is that Slivka insinuates that the real icon was never moved to St. Stephen's in Vienna, but remained in Pocs (later named Maria Pocs, after the miraculous icon)


I am not too sure how accurate this book still is, it was printed a couple of decades ago. But I just read this today at work and wanted to share with you this info.

ALity

Well, to be accurate, I am proud of my (Rusyn) people and am honored to be associated with them. However, my "ethnicity" technically is something I was born with and I am certainly not bragging (nor ashamed) of that. But really, you ought to gather some more evidence than my 32 previous posts. I doubt I've mentioned Ukrainians in more than a handful. But if sticking up for Rusyns is anti-Ukrainian, then I'm guilty. Who else ever sticks up for Rusyns here? We're bashed as Latinized, de-ethnicized, Americanized, confused, unfaithful to the Byzantine church, etc. And last but not least, all of our cultural and historical treasures are ascribed to the Slovaks and Ukrainians.


Yes, I know, just as your Ukrainian history books have told you: Podkarpatska Rus'/"Carpatho-Ukraine" was "occupied" for 1000 years by the Magyars, then it was "occupied" for 20 years by the Czechs, then it was "occupied" again by the Magyars, etc. until it was reunited with Mother Ukraine as it longed to be since the prehistoric age, apparently. :rolleyes: That is one viewpoint, and it is valid. That doesn't mean that it excludes all other possibilities.


I don't disagree that Rusyns and Galician Ukrainians are historically the same people. However, in 2002 the equation Rusyn = Ukrainian does not hold. All Ukrainians are Rusyns, but not all Rusyns are Ukrainians.

By the way, have you read the Russophile history of Carpatho-Russia and Little Russia? Compared to that, I'm the best friend a Ukrainian could ever have!

[ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: Lemko Rusyn ]

When I read (not here, of course) Ukrainian claims that trans-carpathian Rusyns are "Ukrainians", it reminds me of the similar claims that "Great" Russians make about Ukrainians.

What are the chances that the "Rusyn" language will be recognized in Ukraine as it in other countries of the Carpathian Region?

As far as I know, Carpathian Rusyn is not banned in Ukraine. And I do believe that they allow for it to be taught in the schools. What evidence do you have that Ukraine does not recognize it?

ALity

Lemko-

Yes! Well, I don't bash Rusyns either. I am one of them. And you are right with your statement. Not all Rusyns are Ukrainians. After all, the Muscovites are Rusyns too and I would never consider them Ukrainians.

For the Record, I have never read any Ukie doctrination history books. Just went to PodKarpatska, visited museums and read monuments, and came to my own conclusions. I would think that the southern Rusyns would be much happier under Kyiv, rather than Prague, or Budapest, after all, it was the original capital of their ancient empire and Ukrainians are without a doubt the most similar to the Carpatho-Rusyns.

On the question of one united slav-Church (Byz. Catholic Patriarchal Church) I am all for it, if our bishops and people have enough trust and vision for it.

ALity

ALity, Rusyn is not "banned" in Ukraine; there are books and newspapers published in the language (or rather, a few versions of the language since no codification has been completed that was universally accepted). However, it is unrecognized by the government as anything but the local dialect of Ukrainian, and as such it is not permitted to be taught in public schools.


Courtesy of http://www.fuen.org . (Sorry to take this off topic.)

What is this Rusyn language? Is it like a dialect of Czech or Ukrainian?

Codification of Rusyn literary language in Slovakia
http://www.carpatho-rusyn.org/indexcod.htm

GeoNative � Rusyn
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9479/rusyn.html

Ethnologue � Rusyn � Slovakia
http://www.sil.org/ethnologue/countries/Slok.html#RUE

Ethnologue � Rusyn � Ukraine
http://www.sil.org/ethnologue/countries/Ukra.html#RUE

Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation UNPO � Rusyn People
http://www.unpo.org/member/rusyn/rusyn.html

Endangered Languages in Europe � Rusyn
http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/europe_report.html

Ruthene dialects
http://tied.narod.ru/tree/slav/ruthene.html

conference for teachers of Lemko language
http://www.lemko.org/lemko/kr/jazyk.html

writings of Seman Madzelan
http://www.lemko.org/lemko/madzelan/index.html

I have a book by Paul Magosci, "Let's Speak Rusyn" which is a Presov regional edition, ISBN 0-917242-00-9. Many of the Transcarpathians around Uzhorod do consider themselves Ukrainian, albeit Zakarpatsky.

There is room in the Kyivan Tradition for particular linguistic expressions - English, Ukrainian, Rusyn, whatever - without compromising either the entirety or organic constitution of the Kyivan Church nor the dignity of the various ethnicities that make it up. There is strength in numbers and solidarity if unified under a Kyivan Patriarchate.

The continued fractionation of the Rusyn churches into Magyar, whatever sui juris jurisdictions will not accomplish much. Case in point with the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia (Pittsburgh). It is basically "on its own" jurisdictionally now and is down to four students in its seminary.

We need to look out of the box and see what is the best unifying potential. It seems to logically be the Kyivan Patriarchate with room for individual ethnic expressions (including Rusyn) under its omophor.

Back on topic, the MP released a statement picked up in this week's Ukrainian Weekly denouncing the proposal by Patriarch Lubomyr to move the patriarchal offices from L'viv to Kyiv. No such statements by the KP or the Autokephali (Autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church). Not suprising, eh?

As a point of trivia (well, maybe not), the UOC-Moscow Patriarchate is by far the dominant Orthodox jurisdiction in the Zakarpatska Oblast (historic Subcarpathian Rus'), while the UOC-KP and UAOC have but a handful of parishes and faithful.

The strong presence of the MP is another legacy of "focused russification" of parts of Zakarpatska Oblast. Many areas are strongly Greek Catholic as well.

Forced Russification? Forced by whom? The Magyars? The Czechs?

If this happened under the Soviet Union, what was it about Zakarpatska Oblast that set it apart from the rest of Ukraine for such special treatment? After all, Uzhhorod is farther away from Russia than any other place in Ukraine, pretty much.

The fractionation was as bad or arguably worse in the 60's when our seminary was full. What is the connection? How would broader unification help the situation?

djs - I have personally answered this question many times, in many threads, on this forum. So, instead I would like to turn it around on you. How will continuing to remain tiny individual churches, with limited resources, help our church to survive?

I think I am going to start a website up on this issue.

Your question: If we were to form one, non natinal-Byzantine church with a Patriarchate which would include all Ukrainian, Rusyn, Belarusyn, Russian, Slovakian, etc. Greek Catholic Church, the power of such a united church, large synod, addressing issues and making decisions that benefit the health and restoration of our traditions, would have enormous potential!

Plus, as one church, we would have the best and brightest of each church sharing resources and knowledge, which to a greater extent than today, would help better identify who we are as , sorry Orthodox guests, Othodox Christians in union with Rome. Individual national differences must be accepted and nurtured, which is in the spirit of Christian diversity and Charity.

The synod in regards to future ecumenical councils effecting the entire world Catholic Church would have a greater voice, more united and resolved on the Byzantine position of certain matters of faith and morals.

Is this ideal? Yes. Is it practical today? No, not yet. Is it possible? Anything's possible, and it certainly is not such an obsurd thing to conjur up that it could never happen?

What or why would you be against such an "idea", "concept"?

ALity

[ 06-06-2002: Message edited by: ALity ]

RESOLUTION 2002/08
The Assembly of Delegates of the Federal Union of European Nationalities in Subotica/Yugoslavia on 9 May 2002 passes the following resolution:

it expresses its concern at the continuing violation of the national rights of the Carpathian Rusins who live in their historic home in Rusinia, since 1946 Trans-Carpathian territory of the Ukraine.

The Assembly of Delegates demands yet again:

� recognition of the national minority of the 'Trans-Carpathian Rusins', an end to obligatory assimilation and the granting equal rights as the other national minorities of the Ukraine have

� contact with the Rusin organisations and members of the Rusin families in other countries be facilitated according to the recommendations made by the General Convention of the European Council on the protection of national minorities

� the results of the census in the Ukraine be publicised, including that of the Trans-Carpathian Rusins, irrespective of the violation of the rights to freedom of national self-determination.

Interesting group. Although I wonder about the authority of such an assembly. Why, becasue they officailly refer to Ukraine, as the Ukraine. Official European agencies, ever sensitive of cultural bigotry, would never make such a mistake.

But, regardless of this, I will accept the points as valid and state that Ukraine should recognize the Carpatho-Rusyns as a seperate ethnic minority, distinct from Ukrainians, for those who wish to be identified as such.

I think part of the problem, or the reason Ruthenian is not taught in public schools in the Transcarpathia Oblast, may lie in the fact that, as you have stated earlier, in this post, there is still to be determined a set codice that is universally acceptable to represent the Rusyn language that all Rusyn's can agree to. Any nationality must have a corresponding language that helps to identify their "nation" as such. This further obscures the "Ruthenian question" Ruthenians have never had a nation, nor a codified language. As much as I know about the Ruthenian Language, which is not alot, it seems to be regional dialects of Old Slovanic. Old Slovanic is an extremely diverse language with different peculiararities in every region it was spoke. In the Kyivan Rusyn region, Old Slovanic was spoken differently from the Old Slovanic spoken in occupied (Magyar) Carpatho- Rus', or Serbia, Muscovy, etc.

Just my thoughts,
ALity

ALity:

I don't have strong opinions on this matter. I don't see it as a panacea, nor do I see it as a threat.

I strongly agree with sharing resources and knowledge. I also suggest that the development of mission churches ought to be done in a coordinated manner. But such activities do not require a unified canonical structure.



I am not enthusiastic on this point. What, exactly, is this "power" and how will it be wielded? A sui juris church might sensibly tend to resist subordination to such power, prefering to exercise its own, particular judgements on authentic traditions, organinc development, and pastoral sensitivity.


Perhaps. And I like your focus on faith and morals rather than on discipline and canon law.

I think that much can gained immediately through better cooperation among particular churches. With patience, we will see where that cooperation leads. Strong efforts to accelerate this process could very inhibit rather than promote cooperation.

Concering the Orthodox jusridictions tending toward MP in Transcarpathia and KP/UAOC in Galicia, here's an interesting link -

www.fas.harvard.edu/~postcomm/ [fas.harvard.edu] papers/2000-01/darden.pdf

- to a paper entitled:
Literacy, Nationalism, and Political Choice: the Origins and Consequences of National Identites in Post-Soviet States.

"Orthodox Jurisdictional Choices" could be included in the title.

To oversimplify: the author argues that the rise literacy provides a means by which ideas of national identity are solidified. The attitude of post-Soviet states toward Mosocow, then, substantially depends on whether wide-spread literacy was achieved before or during their incorporation in the Soviet state.

djs - Continue to exercise localized sui juris jurisdiction all you want...the four seminarians in Pittsburgh will keep dwindling down to zero. Is a stronger, more unified voice for Eastern Catholics of the Kyivan/Cyrillo-Methodian tradition such a bad thing? Access to seminaries, monasteries, theological academies, etc.? Stronger voice for a genuine Eastern spiritual, liturgical, moral and dogmatic patrimony?

No one is being asked to give up anything ehtnically. In the Ukrainian Catholic Church we have eparchies in the U.S., Canada, Argentina, Brasil, France, Germany, England, Australia...right there is a pretty ethnic and linguistic diversity. We don't tell the Argentinians they have to stop being Argentinian to be Ukrainian Catholic! We had a pastor at our parish some years ago from Argentina, Fr. Jose, who told us about divine Liturgies in Spanish and Ukrainian he was celebrating there.

I think that positive collaboration could be made to maximize the efficiency of the existing church resources under a unified Kyivan Patriarchate. It would benefit everyone in the long run and in the big picture give much more canonical autonomy than that currently offered in the metropolitan churches sui juris, who have to rely on Rome for every episcopal nomination and confirmation.

I think we need to start opening the dialogue on some of these issues and consider where our church is and where it needs to go in the future. We must have a vision to work towards to be a church ready to tackle the challenges of the future. ALity, count me in on helping out your website.

Diak:

I think that your suggestion, again, that the fractionization is causally linked to our low number of seminarians is baseless.

With respect to the good that can come from greater cooperation - I concur, as stated in my response to ALity.

I really don't see ethnicity or national boundaries as much of an issue.

Whether we would have more "autonomy" (really, the ability to do things our way) or less, working together or separately, that is the interesting question. It has been asked in the early part of this century in our brotherhoods, among eastern catholics forming parishes and episcopates, and similarly among the Orthodox.

I am optimistic that things have changed and a different outcome can occur now. But it will require patience.

djs - Oversimplified, yes, there are many factors contributing to the vocation problem, even the Latins are having grave problems...but I did get your attention. :p

But baseless NO. In our Ukrainian Catholic Church we are able to form vocations from the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, Great Britain, Argentina, Brazil...and that is OUTSIDE of Eastern Europe. We are able to do this precisely because of ecclesiological unity. We have joint facilities in Rome, in Canada, in D.C., in L'viv open to any of our seminarians. Religious communities in many different areas. Unity with diversity, what a great concept...

We can continue to form smaller and smaller sui juris jurisdictional fiefdoms, but each will need its own substructures, seminaries, vocations, and each will be far more dependent on Rome for day to day ecclesiological issues precisely because there is no patriarchal structure to assist, guide and provide... Just from a logistical and economic standpoint alone this is really not practical.

For someone outside of all of this, how does seeing Catholics of the same Slavic spiritual, theological, ecclesiological and liturgical heritage wanting distance and independence from each other look? Within the same country? What kind of witness does that give for Christian unity? This isn't about being Ukrainian. This is about long-term, big picture Christian unity that can be possible with a unified Kyivan Patriarchate if we can all mutually put away our provincial baggage. Call me ideologically naive, dreamer, whatever...I just have this Platonic nature to me that tries to see the big picture in everything. Take care and God bless.
Subdeacon Randolph, a sinner

Any Patriarch, bishop, priest or deacon that uses violence, aproves of it or remains silent, about these conflicts cannot be considered a man of God.
To be honest with you, I can't find the words to classify them.(and I know quite a few words)
Lauro

I think I found the words to classify these priests.
They're "watermelon priests". They're green on the outside but red in the inside.
Lauro

djs, sorry I meant to use instead of :p That's the second time today and I am at myself for it. :rolleyes:

Ipreima, their reward will be in the next world, likely with extra liability attached since they had the riassa and the cross on, have the care of souls to provide good example for and were in persona Christi. "Man of God"? They don't act like it, do they?

It's not for us to judge, lest we be judged ourselves, but the witness to Christian charity and love is certainly lacking in these sorts of fellows.

We're slipping off topic again...

Lemko Rusyn, Moscow, both before and after the Revolution, has had a vested interest in Zakkarpatia (Transcarpathia) precisely because it is the border region between Ukraine, Hungary, etc. Russification has enabled the ethnic polarization of the Rusyns to not only keep Rusyn nationalistic solidarity from happening, which might have precipitated some nationalistic revolt, but also to keep perceived nationalistic polarizations between magyarized Rusyns and russified Rusyns alive to keep the physical border clear and distinct between them. The Hungarians did the same on their side to keep those wild Rusyns under control and keep them from defecting to the other side.

Ukraine as a military entity wasn't really ever much of a threat to the Rusyns, since it was divided between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Russia, and I don't understand the fear of the Rusyns for the Ukrainians...the emergence of a free Ukraine seems to be causing some fears or reservations from the Rusyn minority...or perhaps it is a reaction to the fact that they will never be able to pull together the kind of solidarity the Ukrainian people have to form a nation.

The russification of the Rusyns also was beneficial to Moscow as this kept the Rusyns from becoming part of a larger Ukrainian solidarity that they would have to potentially deal with. Conquer and divide, using ethno-geographic differences to your benefit, has been a winning strategy for hundreds of years.

This political fractionation unfortunately has caused grave identity problems for the Rusyn minority. I have a friend who is a magyarized Greek Catholic, he will never see himself as anything but Hungarian...I have spoken some to him about Rusyn identity and he will have none of it.

Others I know call themselves "Slovak" or other such ethnic misnomers with the same sort of lack of recognition as Rusyns. In Canada the eparchy calls itself "Slovak Catholic" in fact...It doesn't seem like many Rusyns themselves either admit to or recognize their Rusyn identity outside of their proximal geographic origin (Slovak, Hungarian, etc.). I have even heard several Slovaks call themselves "White Russians"! (they were clearly not Byelorussian).

Taking the example of Ukrainian Catholics, on the other hand, no matter if they are American, Canadian, Brazilian, whatever, will rarely identify themselves as anything other than Ukrainian Catholics. They may claim foriegn citizenship, but there is no doubt as to their ecclesial and ethnic identity.

Back on topic. For the good of Christian unity, and preservation of genuine eccelsiological, spiritual, and liturgical identity, and fostering positive cooperation amongst churches of like liturgical heritage that are supposed to be in communion with each other, it only makes sense to begin dialogue about all of the Catholic churches of the Kyivan/Cyrillo-Methodian tradition uniting under a single Patriarchate. The structure is in place, we need to start the dialogue objectively with ethnic phobias aside and see the big picture of what the possibilities and be and the implications for Catholic witness worldwide.

Division and provincialism will get us nowhere, been there, done that. We don't want to head down a dark road similar to that of jurisdictionalism that the Orthodox continue to battle with.

Diak-
I think the road to Kyivan/Cyro-methodian Catholic unity might be better served talking about the phobias and fears and moving forward from there. An absolute MUST in any practical corporate union MUST be absolute tolerance of different ethnic and cultural expressions. Everyone need not do as they do in Kyiv. And the Ukrainian Church bears alot of the responsibility in tolerance because they are by far the largest church of the potential corporation of Slav-Byzantine Catholic Churches.

Yes, Amen! The Jurisdictional fractionalization of the Orthodox is sad and we should learn from our Roman sister church concerning one Roman Church in many nations. But we must also learn from the Eastern concept of unity through diversity and allow a multiplicity of expression and tradition within a common and standard Liturgical rubric.

I also think that, for unity sake, the official language of the Church should be Old Slovanic. this could be a crucial bridge to bring everyone together. (Just imagine synodal documents and canons coming forthwith English on one side and Old Slovanic on the other! ) How cool!!!

In many respects, the efforts of the MP in Ukriane, is to prevent the further fractinoalization of Orthodoxy into mutually exclusive national jurisdictions that you metnioned earlier. The MP sees themselves, as you rightfully point out, the sole inheritors of the Kyivan tradition. And such nationalistic "Ukrainian" Churches are simply schismatic churches not living the call of Christians to be one. Interesting enough, they will resort to any means necessary to secure their interests. They must have learned something from those communists!

ALity

Ality, don't forget that Patriarch Alexis was known by the KGB as "Agent Drozhdov" during his days in Ministry of Religuous Affairs for the "guvment"...he was also awarded recently the "Medal of Service to Missile Troops"...being awarded for service to those who maintain weapons of mass destruction...

The situation with the MP is serious and complex. The MP still acts as if it has the backing of the Tsarist or Soviet regimes to carry out its control of parishes, perhaps it still does to some extent. But the essential problem still seems to be the need for the MP to smother and control the Kyivan church...if the historic seat of the Muscovite Church (before it was the Muscovite Church) fell into the hands of the Ukrainains, I don't think that will set well with the MP hierarchy.

With the MP there can be no diversity, linguistic or otherwise without full compliance with the directives of the Church of Moscow. This is not unity with diversity, but unity with coercion and violence. Just look internally what has happened to reform-minded priests like Gleb Yakunin. Ostracized, threats of violence, from within the hierarchy. Public burning of the books of Alexander Schmemann in Siberia ordered by the hierarchy, labelled as tainted with modernism and neo-papism.

Back off topic...In our own Ukrainian Catholic Church there is room for diverse ethnicities...Argentinians, Brazilians, whatever...I don't see them as having phobias to the point of needing to create a separate sui juris jurisdiction free from the Synod. In fact the opposite is true. We can cooperate, worldwide, without any amalgamation which causes loss of unique ethnic or linguistic identity.

The bottom line is, we can have a unified patriarchal church that is sensitive to ethnic and linguistic diversity. We have to start thinking out of our ethnocentric boxes and look at what we really do have in common and what will precipitate the greater unity of Christians, while at the same time treasuring what gives us that unique identity. Unity with diversity, a great concept...

And I'm with you, bro, on the Staroslavyansky. As the Latins have lost much with the decline in the study and proficiency of Latin, not strictly for liturgical reasons, but also for academic and cultural reasons so have we in the neglect of the language of our liturgical heritage. I try to throw in as much as I can when I cantor, and I'm teaching my sons how to read it now with the Old Slavonic tutor...Voskres Isus ot hroba, jakozhe proreche...

Take care and God bless.

I think the point being made here is that the supposed original icon that was transferred to Vienna never wept again. The icon in Pocs did weep again, so the miracle is connected to the place - and the icon, but moving the icon did not move the miracle. This is what I have heard - I visited Mariapocs on several ocasions and this is what I heard there: that the icon venerated there is a copy, a miraculous copy - and a true weeping icon. Very off topic but felt compelled to comment.

Bob

Dear Bob,

That is exactly the point and thank you for making it.

There are two miraculous icons of Mariapoch both of whose miraculous phenomena are connected to a geographic location.

The icon of the Black Madonna of Czestochowa is similar in that when Vladislaw Opolskie took it to Poland, wherever he stopped for the night and where the icon was placed, miraculous signs soon occurred at those sites and monasteries and churches were soon built over them with miraculous copies of the icon venerated in them.

Alex

1) Sv. Moisei Uhrin (St. Moses the "Hungarian") is not reckoned by many, if any, as ethnically Hungarian. He was a citizen of what would have then been Hungary, a political network that encompassed much more than the territory in which lived ethnic Hungarians. He would have been an ethnic Slav. The research agrees on this.

2) There are two levels of inscriptions of the "Crown of St. Stephen." Latin on the part of the crown that was sent from the Pope of Rome and Greek on the part that was sent from the Byzantine Emperor. There is no "Old Slavonic lettering" on it.

One seach on the MSN search engin produced as the first option:

http://www.interlog.com/~photodsk/magyar/rovas/stcrown.html

Bob

Dear Bob,

As for the Crown of St Stephen, sorry, but I saw the Slavonic lettering on it myself, "research" notwithstanding, and there are other researches that state otherwise.

As for St Moses the Hungarian, yes, of course, this term does not denote an ethnic identity, but a geographical point of origin. The Chronicles of St Nestor clearly state that he was from the "Hungarian lands."

The same is true of the Lithuanian Slavs, Sts Antony, John and Eustace, Christian Slavs who belonged to the Lithuanian Kingdom.

St Peter Mohyla was a Wallachian from the Moldovian area and heir to its Princely throne. Yet, he saw Kyiv as his ecclesial and spiritual Mother - that was the sense in which I mean.

I didn't mean to get into the ethnic breakdown of various Kingdoms as these certainly were not states in our current understanding where a "state" is supposed to embody a cultural unit with its own language etc.

I was simply using this as an indication of the widespread influence of the Kyivan Church, an influence that continued to pick up speed as it progressed eastwardly.

As a monarchist myself, I am not predisposed to understanding "states" in this modern sense to begin with, unlike American historians.

My Master's degree was on this topic. Isn't everyone's?

Alex

[ 06-12-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[ 06-12-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[ 06-12-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Well, I saw a copy of this 'crown' iin Hungary, was told at the time that the true crown has not been displayed for some time. I take it you saw it some time ago then.

Tell me this, to what entity (government, ruler, etc) would "Old Slavonic lettering" on the crown of St. Stephen be atttributed? What does it say? Please point me to research that supports your statment.

Bob

Dear Bob,

As my books are packed away, I'll have to take a rain-check on that!

I don't remember what the lettering said, as it was some time ago, and, to boot, I don't remember what my guide told me it said. It was underneath, on the rim of the Crown, and not visible on the outside, as are the Greek and Latin lettering.

The guide explained to us that the Holy Crown of Hungary, that was always more important than even the King himself, reflected the three main religious/cultural forces at the time, Latin, Greek and Slav.

I've also read about this in written sources, one source suggesting a direct tie between the Hungarian Kingdom and the Kyivan Church.

I don't mean to upset you or contradict you. I apologise and I don't feel this is an issue of "life and death" over which we should be arguing.

When I come across a source, if I still remember in several weeks time, I"ll be sure and share it with you.

Alex

Alex, I don't consider this arguing and I am not upset. I hope you are not. I have never heard anything about Slavonic on the crown of St. Stephen and I have quite the interest in all things Hungarian. I will truly appreciate it if you send me a reference.

Bob

Dear Bob,

I've already promised references to three others!

I'll work on them just as soon as I get unpacked.

We're having some renovations done and our contractor is dragging his feet. He's wasted a whole week the . . .

I too love all things Hungarian!

Alex

Alex,

Below are some Hungarian links...none of them reference Slav language inscriptions on the crown. I am looking and trying to find something...

http://www.extreme.hu/arpadkor/cimszo/c59-2.htm

www.mtv.hu/tema/korona/tortenet.html [mtv.hu]

www.inaplo.hu/na/200108/08.html [inaplo.hu]

Bob

Dear Bob,

Well, it would be interesting if no attention would be paid to it, to be sure.

And these are all Hungarian sites - I too have yet to see any mention made of this by the Hungarians

Although not connected, this reminds me of an interview had with a Polish priest about his (former Byzantine Catholic) Church.

The priest insisted his church was always "Roman."

When the interviewer saw the three-bar Cross on the steeple and indicated it to the priest, the priest simply replied, "Oh, I never noticed it . . ."

Alex

[ 06-13-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Alex,

I cannot imagine why the Hungarians would not admit to having Slavonic on it. They acknowledge the Latin and Greek. Furthere, the Holy Crown, as it is called, has been the subject of solid academic work, I can't imagine this would be covered up succesfully for so long ( more than 900 years!).

As to the former GC church buildings in what is now Poland functioning as RC churches, this is well documented. Look at "The Church in Ruins" (title by memory, may not have 'the'). Further this is within living memory and it can be seen, as you say, I too was in southern Poland (somewhere near Sanok I think) and saw a big beautiful church with 3 bar-crosses and stopped to look, it was now functioning as a RC parish. We asked a lady who was pulling weeds in the adjacent cememtery about the GCs, she said there were no more.

I think this situation cannot be compared to the crown however.

Bob

Dear Bob,

I wasn't comparing it to the Crown . . .

It just reminded me of the Church in Ruins and whenever I have an opportunity to relate a story here, I will.

I have a big mouth, you know.

I'm only happy the Administrator and the people here have tolerated me and my big mouth for as long as they have.

God bless,

Alex

Dear Alex,

Moves are hellish I know. I am just curious to know if you have been able to locate this information. I wish you peace in your move.

Bob

Dear Bob,

The short answer is 'no.'

We were supposed to move in on July 8, but our contractor walked out on us, and even threatened us through his lawyer.

We have counter-claimed and the result of this entire nightmare is a setback that will probably last for another two months, living with in-laws et alia.

I haven't forgotten that issue and I thank you for reminding me.

Your are a "King" in more ways than one.

Alex

Never? Is this comment accurate?

djs

Dear djs,

Apart from the usual Russian imperialist rhetoric, the fact is that the "Unia" first developed in the Kyiv area and then slowly moved westwards.

The "myth" perpetuated by our Moscow Patriarchal brothers (we can choose our friends) is that western Ukraine was always somehow very submissive to union with Rome.

And nothing could be further from the truth!

L'viv and its very Orthodox brotherhoods only finally accepted the unia about half a century later, by 1700.

The Maniavsky Skete existed in western Ukraine and held out even longer.

The fact is, although the Russian "pishmaky" are loathe to even think upon it, is that Kyiv and eastern Ukraine had no reason to hate Rome - western Ukraine did due to the Polish imperial influence.

In fact, the Orthodox three-bar Crosses are far more widespread in Western Ukraine than in Eastern Ukraine, especially along the borders with our RC neighbours.

The fact of the matter is also that Orthodox people in Ukraine and Russia actually do like this Pope and I would wager that if it came to a vote, which it won't, they would rather have closer ties to John Paul II.

Alex

Hi!
I've read that in some cases, some bishops from Western Ukraine accepted the unia years before publicly declaring so. Could someone explain how this is possible? Doesn't the liturgy reveal the affiliation?

No, it doesn't as they continued to function as
Orthodox bishops, including liturgical commemorations they performed.

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter

In fact, the Union began in the North and the
Uniate Church of 17th century was mostly Byelorussian by her ethnic character (we Ukrainians don't like to remember that).
The city of Brest/Berestya/Brzesc is now in Byelarus, but this region (Polissya) is ethnically
Ukrainian.

Uniate Metropolitans made many efforts in order to
establish firm church structures in the city of Kyiv, but they failed. However, the region between Dnipro and Zbruch Rivers (central Ukraine) was almost completely "Uniatized" in 18th century. Most of those Uniates were turned Orthodox at the end of the same 18th centry by the Russian authorities, but some Uniate parishes survived in Kyiv region until 1839, when Uniate Church in all the Russian Empire was "reunited" with Russian (state) Orthodox Church.

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter

[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Piotr Siwicki ]

Dear Piotr,

Yes, but . . .

The Belarusiyans were part of the one Kyivan Church at the time and many ethnically Ukrainian bishops headed their parishes, such as St George Konissky, Archbishop of Mohiliv, who was canonized recently by the Orthodox Church of Belarus.

The distinctions between the Eastern Slavs in that area weren't hard and fast. Most derived their ethnic identity from their religion, as you know.

And it was, in fact, the Orthodox Metropolitan of Kyiv who signed the instrument of union.

It was the Orthodox Saint Macarius, Metropolitan of Kyiv, who died in Belarus or Lithuania (?)at a time when he was preparing a very ecumenical letter to the Pope.

Also, St Peter Akerovych I, Orthodox Met. of Kyiv was in personal union with Rome at the Council of Lyons, as Fr. Holweck writes in his dictionary of Saints and as Patriarch Josef Slipyj mentioned on at least two public occasions.

humbly submitted also,

Alex

Of course they were, and even more: both Ukrainian
and Byelorussian people in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were called "Ruthenians" ("Rusini"
in Polish).


Konissky lived in 18th century and was "product" of Russian Synodal Church in many aspects. Far better example would be St. Josaphat Kuntsevych -
an Ukrainian from Volhynia, who belonged to one of the earliest Uniate generations and became
archbishop of Polotsk/Polatsak - the only purely
Byelorussian eparchy of Kyivan Metropolitanate.


But he in fact never resided in Kyiv. St. Sophia
Cathedral was completely in ruin. Metropolitans
preferred northern lands for their residence
(I mean present-day Lithuania and Byelorussia).

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter

Dear Piotr,

Yes, I know the Met. of Kyiv didn't reside there - that means nothing really because he still bore the name of the ancient See and did when he was in Vladimir on the Klyazma and then later in Moscow.

You are looking at St Josaphat somewhat uncritically, overlooking the undue influence the Polish Jesuits had over him and his perspectives. Ultimately, it was the Polish King and his government who strongly promoted his beatification in the hope of gaining politically through religion.

George Konissky was strictly Orthodox (and a great scholar) but also very Ukrainian culturally and spiritually. His correspondence with the Uniate bishop Borecky bears this out, especially when Borecky tells him about how the Poles, in heated discussions, called both Greek Catholics and Orthodox "schismatics."

The "synodal" influence you mention is something that can also be laid at the feet of Greek Catholic priests of the Russophile orientation and others.

Alex