www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Old news?

Dear Brendan,

May I propose you a "sincerity test"? Just one question: if the ROC (which claims herself to be "all-Rus'", "Ruthenian", not just "Russian" in the modern ethnic meaning; in Ukrainian it would be "Rus'ka Tserkva", not "Rosijs'ka") should be maintained as a whole, shouldn't her center return to Kyiv?

Yours very truly indeed

Reader Peter

Piotr --

My sense was that places like Constantinople, Moscow and Kiev are, themselves, probably too "tainted" with the nationalist/ethnocentrist bug to serve, credibly, as a regional Orthodox Patriarchate. I would think it would be best to find a new place for a new kind of Patriarchate -- a new, "old" kind of Patriarchate -- a regional one that is not tainted by being associated -- virtually forever in people's minds -- with a nation-based Church, be it Russian, Ukranian or Greek.

Brendan

No patriarchate was created outside of a big city - real center of the real region. Kyiv and Moscow are such centers. Could you name a city which might replace them?

Sincerely,

Reader PETER (or Petro, but NOT Piotr)

Atlantic City

Hello Brendan --

Is Schmemann's "A Meaningful Storm" available on-line? I did a quick search and could not find the text.

Wasn't a movie made about this article starring George Clooney?

Greg

Dear Reader Piotr,

I am afraid you really got Brendan on this one.

And what you've done is something I've tried to do for a very long time, and was unsuccessful.

So congratulations . . .

We still love Brendan though, don't we?

I think Atlantic City would be wonderful.

My own preference is for New Orleans since with all those beads people wear there for Mardi Gras and at other times, having lots of clerics walking around in their ryassa wouldn't offend anyone and they would fit right in!

But in terms of the narrow nationalism that Brendan is talking about, I think Constantinople and Kyiv (thank y'all for the correct spelling of the latter) are the historically least "nationalistic" patriarchal and metropolitanic centres.

But your point is so very good that it shows how previous patriarchal centres have tried to be "trans-national" but were only, in reality, imperial centres of domination over other Churches.

But I don't want to upset Brendan with this, especially since I know he has two Christmases to prepare for!

Alex

Peter --

I guess I was confused by the fact that your screen name is "PIOTR" -- *not* "Peter". My apologies.

I'm not sure that it has to be in a big city, although that makes some historical sense in light of first millenium practices. I think that the "bigness" had to do with the fact, however, that these were true regional centres with the ability to function as such. Under the present circumstances, national issues may very well prevent Moscow -- the logical regional centre -- from functioning as such, and would also likewise disqualify Kiev from functioning as such. And there are other (admittedly later) precedents as well -- notably Pec in Serbia.

Looking around the map, perhaps someplace "neutral" like Minsk, could be the regional ecclesiastical centre for the Northern Slavic Orthodox, while someplace like Iasi or even Belgrade could serve as the Southern Slav/North Balkan Patriarchate, while Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey could be amalgamated into a revised Ecumenical Patriarchate with his seat on Athos. Just a few thoughts.

Kurt --

Somehow, I don't think Atlantic City would work. Perhaps we could use the union headquarters as the site of the future North Slav Patriarchate?

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

The union headquarters would only work if that Patriarchate is in the "unia" no?

Again, Friend, I think you are burying yourself in deeper here . . .

Those cities you mention are today national centres as well and they would certainly not be acceptable to other Churches.

Kurt's suggestion really is one that reflects the reality of what you propose.

Alex

I have no problem with the center of Christianity for all Rus' being moved to its first capital, Kiev, if having it in Moscow makes it look like Russian domination.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

Well, Kurt, you're closer to the truth than you
could imagine!

Replacing Kyiv and Moscow by other center(s)
would be possible after their (Kyiv's and Moscow's) liquidation as centers. The best mode of such liquidation (even if unlikely) would be
destruction of, respectively, Ukraine and Russia. What country is able to do it? The US first, the "People's Republic" of China second. So the new patriarchate(s) would be located...well, not on the American/Chinese proper territory, but perhaps in the newly-built cities of Novyi Vashynhton and Novoye Shikago.

Seriously: I think Brendan's points are of much
validity. However, the right path is reform and therapy, not destruction. If the problem occurs with ethnicity, let's try to explain its source. And no one could help but just these "ethnically deviated" Churches - because there are no other Churches on those territories. All beyond this seems to be illusion and mere phantasy.

Sincerely,
Reader Peter

Dear Serge,

You know you are too wonderful for words!

But I think that more than one centre can share in the tradition of St Vladimir's Christianity and heritage.

Moscow has a long-standing one and has always acknowledged Kyiv's role anyway.

Perhaps Kyiv could become a kind of "first among equals" in the Slavic East, I don't know.

I just know that Brendan has got himself into a bit of a pickle with this one.

But we love him anyway, right?

Happy St Nicholas' Eve tomorrow, Sergey!

Alex

Thanks, Alex.

A patriarchate of Pittsburgh had been suggested here (pre-crash) for the Ruthenian Catholic Church worldwide. While that makes some sense geographically as central and western Pennsylvania and Ohio are the heart of Американская Русь, New York would be a better patriarchal see both for an envisioned future American Orthodox Church and indeed for one American apostolic Church of all rites. NY is the de facto capital of North America, and I'm not just saying this because I like visiting it a lot. (It's also why NY was a target Sept. 11, along with the de jure US capital.) For the American Orthodox Church it makes sense both because it is geographically close to that Church's largest population and can best enable it to serve the whole continent and country.

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Serge,

This fair position reflects the thought of the founder of Ukrainian conservative monarchism, Vyacheslav Lypyns'kyi.
Lypyns'kyi, an Ukrainian nobleman of Polish origin, was Roman Catholic - far from clericalism, but very devout one. He was definitely for Ukraine's independence, but didn't insist on dividing the Orthodox Church. Of course, his remarks on Orthodoxy were very cautious as he didn't wish to interefere in other Church's matter's. He wrote that every Church should be independent from the state - so he was
against the previous system of Synodalism. However, such an not involved into politics Church should not be necessarily divided - just the opposite: it would be maybe good for all to have one Church ("a division is dangerous, unity is useful"), and it would be a great honor for Ukraine if this all-Rus' Church decides to move
her center to the previous place - Kyiv (it WASN'T Lypyns'kyi's "conditio sine qua non" for maintaining the unity).

Tell us, Serge: did you know about that?

Sincerely,
Reader Peter

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Piotr Siwicki ]

Dear Reader Peter,

No, I didn't. Thanks!

Ukraine, Byelorussia and Russia should be one Church if not one politically.

http://oldworldrus.com

Political unity - God forbid! But, of course,
all three countries should have very good relationships.
Lypyns'kyi's dream (let's remember his priority was INTERNAL policy, not foreign affairs) was the alliance of three "Rusi", in which Ukraine could help Russia to heal herself from the imperialist mentality, inherited from Mongol period.

Sincerely,
Reader Peter