www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Leaders of world Orthodoxy give unanimous support to canonical Ukrainian Church

Dear Three Cents,

Unlike Incognitus ( ), I understand where you are coming from.

However, the fact is that the issue of canonical Orthodoxy in Ukraine CANNOT be separated from the political issue of national Church.

The canonical Orthodox Church of Ukraine is, as Incognitus has said, the Church of Moscow.

This has, under the current situation in Ukraine and elsewhere, become very problematic for many Ukrainian Orthodox (and I understand that 25% of those who define themselves as "Ukrainian Orthodox" over there say they don't belong to any particular jurisdiction whatever).

Moscow does not wish to let go of Kyiv and this is seen not as part of a "canonical versus uncanonical" battle but as an imperial battle for continued control over a former colonized Church.

The term "Rus'" is used by Moscow to describe what is really "Muscovite Rus'." In fact, it is nonsense to refer to "Rus'" since there is no unified "Rus'" any longer, not for a very long while - and it can only be used in a highly generic way ie. "East Slavs" etc.

This is not the first time an Orthodox patriarchate has asserted its autocephaly - Moscow itself did this, along with Serbia etc.

But for some reason, Ukraine is not allowed to do this, even though Kyiv/Kiev is acclaimed by all as the "Mother" of Rus' Orthodoxy.

This has nothing to do with "canons" but only with a more political battle that will eventually be decided when Moscow decides to back off from her former colonies that it controlled thanks to the Russian empire.

The Russian empire is no longer. It is time for the Moscow Patriarchate to stop pretending that it is.

Alex

Alex,
I think you have hit the issue right on the head.
Moscow wants Russian control over a country that is no longer Russian. And that should not be allowed to happen.
The Ukrainians deserve their own patriarchate, no?

Stephanos I

Well, I'd like to understand why 70% of the population of THE Ukraine speaks Russian as their first language if it isn't Russian any longer. No more Rus'--where did it go?! From whence does a "Ukraine" emerge, and why is it a basis for autocephaly--phyletism is defined as a heresy in Orthodoxy. Especially since Kiev is the cradle of RUSSIAN civilization, "RUSSKAJA PRAVDA" anyone? "Povest' Vremenykh Let'" or lest we forget that Hrushevsky's opus was originally titled "A History of RUS'". Why even Rome referred to the UCC as THE RUSSIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH INTO THE 1950s. This is just silly, like the Byelorussian separatists arguing they're the "real" Lithuanians and Pilsudski was one of them. 70% of Orthodox believers in the Ukraine are loyal to the MP. +Metropolitan Vladimir, or Volodimir in Old Russian, has as his surname "Slabodan"--strange name for a Great Russian chauvinist?! There may one day arise a need for an autocephalous see of Kiev (Please transliterate the ancient texts!), but that church will have to reflect the demography of the Ukraine which it seems is so similar to Moscow or St. Petersburg as to be identical...Oh, "Russia" is a Latin construction derived from Kievan scholars in the 17th century, root "Rus'" + medial "-s-" + "-ia"..."land of Rus'" which denoted a restoration of unity of Russian peoples. Before charges are levelled of Russian chauvinism or "tsarist anachronisms," was Hrushevsky a Great Russian chauvinist?! Indeed, the names KOSTAMAROV & DRAGOMANOV allude to a more insidious Great Russian chauvinism...a quack narodnik experiment gone too far.

Dear Kollyvas,

Please be respectful of referring to the country of Ukraine without 'the' before it, as this is the current proper usage.

We always try to be respectful towards each other here, and even when we disagree, we do not deliberately try to offend the other.

Remember that we are a diverse group of ethnicities and faith traditions here, and while some of us occasionally err in regard to the ethnic sensitivites of others, we never do it deliberately, for we are all brethren called to love and honor each other in Christ our Lord.

Thank you.

In Christ,
Alice, Moderator

"The" is actually appropriate and you will find it on several papal documents. Indeed, it still is the most common useage even in jounalism, history, government, etc., NY TIMES. But since you insist on it being ommitted, I shall simply refer to the region by its Little Russian colloquial name. Ukraina...It is referred to as "the" because "ukraina" was never a name of a nation, but, rather a Slavic word which denoted a "borderland". Indeed, the Greek ecclesiastical proper name for the region was Rosija Mikra, Little Russia. The earliest records referred to the region in question as "Rus'." It was only later Polish imperialism following the implosion of Litovskaja Rus' which brought the word into use. It was never, not until the twentieth century, used to refer to a nation, but rather a region. Indeed there were even other "ukraina"s such as the Cossack community at Azov. Thank you for allowing me to inform people of the truth of the matter...

Kollyvas,
"Why even Rome referred to the UCC as THE RUSSIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH INTO THE 1950s." Alas, you are not reporting accurately. Might I ask for your source of reference?

You ask why a high percentage of the Ukrainian population have Russian as their first language. That phenomenon is by no means unique to Ukraine. A high percentage of the Welsh population have English for their first language; this does not mean that they have become English. A high percentage of the population such places as Haiti and Gabon have French for their first language; that doesn't make them ethnic Gauls. And so on.

Ukraine, as you should know, is a founding member of the United Nations, which demonstrates more than adquately Ukraine's status in international law.

Incognitus

ATTENTION ALICE,

A warm welcome upon your revival from your break. As always, your intervention is timely and appropriate.

Incognitus

A minor clarification:

Technically, Ukraine was not a "founding member" of the United Nations. Ukraine was still "merged" with Russia and with the rest of the Soviet Republics as the U.S.S.R. at the time the organization was formed as a "successor" to the League of Nations, formed after the cessation of World War I.

Rather, the Soviet Union was one of the five "founding members" of the United Nations, formed after the cessation of World War II, the other four being the U.S., France, the UK, and the then Republic of China.

Together with the five "founding members," there were 50 plus 1 (Poland, which signed on also on 24 October 1945) as "original members" of the United Nations.

However, Ukraine, as an independent and sovereign nation BEFORE it was absorbed by the Soviet Union, she resumed her status as such when she regained her independence in 1991 upon the break-up of the Soviet Union and her membership in the United Nations is now deemed, by international law and comity, to date back also to 24 October 1945, the date the USSR signed on. (The Russian Federation's membership also dates back to 24 October 1945 for the same reason.)

Go, Ukraine!

Amado

Kollyvas,

It is truly sad that you feel you must repeat, rather than repent, past Russian Orthodox imperial hegemony with respect to Ukraine.

"The" Ukraine was used by both Russian Orthodox imperialism as well as Polish Catholic imperialism at various times.

If you were under Russian control for as long as Ukraine's people were, you too would speak Russian as your first language.

Speaking of phyletism then, does this mean that to be Russian Orthodox one must be against Ukrainian independence?

Is it possible for some Orthodox to admit the history of imperial hegemony where the Orthodox Church collaborated with the State in a less than Christian fashion?

And when will this tiresome nonsense about phyletism stop?

Every Church is a national one - some are even chauvinistic.

Alex

Thank you my dear incognito friend!

Warmly and humbly,
Alice

I agree that there's a lot of dislike of the MP, but it isn't alway uncharitable (per se). I myself was, not too long ago, someone who consistently disliked the MP -- but I think it resulted not from a lack of charity, but from confusion and misunderstanding. More recently, after exploring the issues myself (and disregarding hearsay) I've come to a different view of the matter.

So if there are (as I believe) some on this forum with an undue dislike of the MP, let us hope that there is no real un-charity but simply a need for greater examination of the evidence.

Many years,
Peter.

Dear Peter,

Yes, I too hope that those who dislike the MP for the sake of disliking it would change from their erroneous ways!

And it is to be hoped that some of the MP's ways would change too.

Alex

Would be interesting to learn the OCA's position re the Ukrainian Church? The OCA has tended to ignore or not recognize any Ukrainian Orthodoxy as well as now being somewhat affiliated with the MP.

Inane russophobia does not advance the topic. There was never a nation known as Ukraina, not ever...it was Rus', Litovskaja Rus', Malorossija, and the Galician and Carpathian current territories were known as Chervonaja Rus' & Prikarpatskaja Rus' & Prjashevskaja Rus'--Hrushevsky should repent if this isn't true. And, oh, Josif Cardinal Slipyj was primate of the RUSSIAN Catholic Church.

What uncharity! You label anyone who disagrees with your position as being �inane�?

It seems to me that the people of the state of Ukraine have decided in a democratic fashion to sever ties with the country of Russia and have created a new and independent country.

It also seems to me that the people of Ukraine are deciding that ecclesial ties with Moscow are not in their best interests. It is a very Orthodox custom for a local Church to cut ties with a foreign patriarchate and create her own patriarchate.

Incognitus asked you:
"Why even Rome referred to the UCC as THE RUSSIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH INTO THE 1950s." Alas, you are not reporting accurately. Might I ask for your source of reference?

Shall we assume that since you have not chosen to respond with the appropriate reference that your claim is false? Given your uncharity in your short time on this forum I must ask you to respond to his question before posting again on anything else.

First and foremost 70% of the Orthodox in Ukraina are loyal to the MP...so ties are not so severed. Secondly, Josif Cardinal Slipyj was primate of the Russian Catholic Church so was Kyr Andrew Cardinal Sheptitsky who was appointed administrator of Fr. Fyodorov's work (because they were both regarded as Russians): that is what Rome called the UCC...even Ukrainian organs today such as the Ukrainsky Narodny Sojuz and their news organs were initially called "Russky," Russian. No, "Russky" does not mean Ruthenian: Ruthenian would be "Rusinsky." A check of parish registers of the UCC in N America will find indeed that many communities were once called "Russky" or even "Rus'ky": begin with Pennsylvania parishes. Moreover--I believe--it was when the UCC decided to adopt a Ukrainian identity that a separate Ruthenian (Latin for Russian, Ruthenis) Byzantine Catholic administration was formed; hence, the Byzantine Catholic Church in America. Now, the question that is begged becomes: how is one one day a Russian and the next not? No, it is not from a lack of charity that I dismiss russophobia, but an act of charity and forebearance, for I understand that indeed a dissenting voice would be censored if all truth be told and that in humility I should bear hate for the greater good--that is why my personal email address was provided and I warmly welcome anyone to discuss this topic in private, most especially advocates of "ukrainoznavstvo"....Indeed, as a faithful son of the MP, I should think that charity also be expressed with temperance and forebearance in consideration of my sensibilities and those like me. That would only be Christian and fair.