www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Why do so few BC Priests wear beards?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Well, thats another plus for me! God Bless.

IC XC NIKA,
-Nik!

[ 09-02-2002: Message edited by: Nik ]

Bless me a sinner, Reverend Father Joseph!

Yes, thank you for sharing such a concise review of the 1942 consecrations.

The term "Samosvyat" was often used by Ukrainian Catholics against their Ukrainian Orthodox brothers - I never understood it when I was growing up and then realized it was in the same category of reprehensible language as was "Katsap" etc.

I have met Orthodox priests in that tradition who have indicated to me that they do, in fact, believe in a "liberal" view that says that the consecrations of the 1920's were valid.

And again, that whole topic is beyond me. Meyendorff does mention situations where, in the Coptic and Assyrian Churches, bishops were consecrated by priests (?).

Met. Basil Lypkivsky certainly calls upon these instances, whether real or legendary, to defend his group's consecration of bishops by priestly hands.

Basil Lypkivsky has been canonized a saint by an autocephalous Church in Ukraine, and he was previously canonized by one of the off-shoots of his movement in the U.S.

I found out that his private veneration continues among the now-canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada (and elsewhere?).

Some Ukrainian Orthodox who disagree with his ordinations policy do believe he can be honoured as a Hieromartyr as he was a Priest.

He died in a Siberian camp where he was exiled. One of the guards dressed up as a "devil" and came up to him telling him to "worship him."

When Basil told him to "get bent," the guard killed him, on orders from his superiors.

I've come across Ukrainian Orthodox laity who honour Basil Lypkivsky as a saint. One gentleman had a large poster of him before which he placed fresh flowers - all year round.

In addition, Mykola Borecky, the second in command of the UAOC was canonized and is related to our Bishop Isidore Borecky, to the historic Borecky's like Job as well.

I've met Ukrainian Catholics who have high esteem for St Basil and he was always regarded as a personally holy man.

The Kyivan Patriarchate (not yet canonical because it separated from Moscow without its permission - the schismatics! ) held a festival in honour of the UAOC of the twenties some time back, but did not, of course, endorse the consecration of bishops by priests.

Patriarch Josef Slipyj actually did recognize the orders of the bishops of the UAOC.

I met a bishop of this line of consecration who was married (!) and he showed me a letter from the Patriarch recognizing his orders.

Patriarch Josef also routinely referred to St Basil Lypkivsky as "Metropolitan."

Believe it or not . . .

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your sacerdotal blessing,

Alex

Just a note here. Everyone I read here seems somewhat insulted at the suggestion that BC priests are intimidated by the RC hierarchy and as such do not wear beards. Lets read between the lines folks. Beards have been a tradition of clerics for centuries. It was a sign of wisdom etc. amongst Jewish and pagan sects before Christianities inception. The carrying on of the tradition of beards has also has it's roots in the religious sect of Judiasm that John the Baptist and Jesus are reputed to have belonged. In that particular sect, men did not shave. Unfortunately, as time went on and the issue of unitism reared it's ugly head, the issue of beards like other petty stuff, became a major issue. So, today, to have a beard, and a full uncut one at that, is a statement of conservativness and Orthodoxy which is viewed as a "thumbing of one's nose" in a sense, at the RC hierarchy which had discouraged such practices. Just like they made our priests wear those stupid black "light bulb" hats instead of Kamilavki. Note that to wear a proper Orthodox hat today is also a political statement. It is not overt, but it has political undertones that can rock the boat if you will. That is why, in my humble opinion, so few of our Ruthenian priests wear beards or Hats for that matter.

In Christ,
Athanasius

Athanasius,

Ah, then my suspicions are correct. We are intimidated by the RC's. Now that this is settled, tell me more about the hats. Father Benedict who occassionally fills in for our priest wears a hat, a very nice black one. It has something to do with his monastic order, as I understand it. He is originally from India.

Dan Lauffer

Alex and Father Joe, bravo on the posts about the UAOC. All most Orthodox ever hear are the usual MP propaganda stunts about the non-canonicity of the UAOC and now the KP. The UAOC was attempting to restore the Orthodox Church of Kyiv free from MP usurption and control.

In Orthodox ecclesiology, this sort of autocephaly is commonplace-look at the struggle of the Antiochians to be free of Greek control, the autocephaly of the Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian churches, etc. The MP still believes in its state-backed primacy over the entirety of the former USSR. Remember that fracus in Estonia?

I for one am an admirer of +Vasyl as he and most of his courageous bishops and priests like +Mykola (Borecky) labored and perished alongside ours of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the gulags.

The numbers of their bishop-martyrs is impressive: Stepan Orlyk, Josyp Oksiuk, Feodosy Serhiyiv, Yakiv Chulayivsky, Yuri Mihnovsky, Ivan Pavlosvsky, Volodymyr Samborsky, Hrihoriy Mozolevsky, Konstantin Malyushkevych, Konon Bey, Yuriy Teslenko, Yakim Kalishevsky, Volodymyr Dakhivsky, Oleksander Chervinsky, Konstantin Krotevych, Hrihory Storozhenko, Mykola Karabinevych, Maksym Zadvirnyak among others. Saints who persished in Soviet prisons.

There were multiple cases where the UAOC assisted the UGCC and vice versa in those dark underground days. I guess I have a different idea of
"canonicity" than that of the MP.

Dan and Athanasius,

I think both of you have the wrong idea in thinking the Latin Church intimidates us or is responsible for the Latinizations that existed/exist in the Byzantine Church. Other than mandated celibacy in North America, every Latinization we have was adopted freely. Now one can certainly disagree with those adoptions, which I think we all agree were wrong. But in truth they were simply adopted to differentiate us from the Orthodox with little thought given to what the Latin Church thought. Certainly many saw the Latin Church as more "sophisticated" and wanted to copy her ways much like Peter the Great wanted Russia to imitate Western Europe but that can hardly be called intimidation.

In Christ,
Lance

Good points, Lance, we have usually been our own worst enemy when it comes to Latinizations...one good example of how Rome has actually helped us in this regard is that the Eastern Congregation had to promulgate the Ordo back in the 1940s to make sure we had a relatively un-Latinized road map for Vespers, Matins and the Divine Liturgies...

Blessed Metropolitan Sheptytsky, who played a most significant part in getting the Ordo composed and edited, with WWII going on, crossed himself and remarked, "Nini Otpushchaesh" "Now you can let your servant depart in peace" when he saw the final promulgated Ordo.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Along with mandated celibacy came forced latizizations in many Eastern Catholic Churches, as many were under spiteful bishops like Archbishop Ireland who wanted to make them "Americanized". Being under Latin Bishops didn't make changes freely accepted other than to freely accept them in order to continue to exist. God Bless.

IC XC NIKA,
-Nik!

Perhaps we are getting caught up in semantics here. The Latin's, I agree, have not "imposed" a lot of Latinizations on our churches. We have, as you again have stated, been our own worst enemies many times in the past. The fact remains however, that the abuses that exist within our Eastern churches, specifically in regard to external reverences such as beards and hats, have been slow in returning to their patristic heritage because we have much to lose. Rome chooses our bishops and exercises a great influence over our "subjugate churches". The political "undertone" that I spoke of earlier is the very reason why beards and hats, for example, ARE an issue. No one wants to rock the boat. So the Latins are not intimidating us in a manifest way, but call it a latent intimidation, to use a psychotheraputic reference. In conclusion, and to clarify what I mean by intimidation, I think that our hierarchy's reticense to "rock the boat" is fueled by perceived consequences with both eccumenical dialogue and our relations with the Latin church. As such, such retisence may not be without prudence and merit, none the less, it remains definable as intimidation because the realization of potential consequences are those which may come directly from the Roman hierarchy.
In disclaimer, I think that "this too shall pass" and that things which progress slowly or "organically" within our churches generally are better received. Some of our priests are wearing beards and wearing Kamilavki. More eventually will as the stereo-type of being a radical conservative becomes less and less associated with these external observances.

In Christ,
Athanasius

Nik,

You post: "Along with mandated celibacy came forced latizizations in many Eastern Catholic Churches, as many were under spiteful bishops like Archbishop Ireland who wanted to make them "Americanized". Being under Latin Bishops didn't make changes freely accepted other than to freely accept them in order to continue to exist. God Bless."

I did forget the attempted suppression of infant Chrismation and Communion. But as far as I can tell from research the suppression of infant chrismation was ignored and only infant communion was suppressed, but not uniformly. What other forced Latinizations were there? I would also hesitate to say we were under the Latin bishops. Until we got our exarcahtes I would say we existed pretty much independently of them. If we had been under them we would have been forced to become Latins and ceased to exist period. Until we got our own bishops we existed in a very ambiguous state.

In Christ,
Lance

[ 09-02-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

[ 09-02-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

djs,

I hope you don't make deletion of your posts a habit. I appreciate reading them.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Dan,

Thank you.

The deleted posts were actually meant for another thread; I had a few too many windows open and they wound up here before I moved them.

I really don't have anything to add to my previous posts on this thread, apart from this remark, out of context to be sure, from Metropolitan Shepytsky:

(Concerning Ritual Matters, 1931)

djs