Dear Diak,
Yes, the term does indeed have numerous meanings.
In recent decades, the term, when used by Ukrainians themselves, is often a pejorative term that strikes a kind of terror in their hearts since it does suggest clinging to the coat-tails of Great Russian imperialism.
"Russophilism" in our history and nation has usually meant this. And I think it is generally true to say that this is how Ukrainians anywhere today would interpret this term.
And this movement had its rationale in Western Ukraine to oppose denationalization where western Catholic countries used Latinization to try and make Ukrainians something other than what they were.
Latinization always went hand in hand with the national-political agenda, the two were never separate, as Russophilism and Russification never were either.
Prof. Kosarenko and Prof. Maximovych show how the term "Ukraine" originally also simply meant "field" for Ukrainians and underscored their strong attachment to the land, nature's processes etc.
"Rus'" was the formal name of the Kyivan city-state and, as such, appears more frequently in official documents, although even in ancient poetry the term "Ukraine" is used to signify "our people."
Today, because of historical usage, "Rus'" is totally identified with "Russia" or "Muscovy" and this term has become rather foreign to contemporary Ukrainian identity and nationality.
This is more "cultural" than "political" from my point of view, although politics does enter into it, as it most certainly did and does in the whole "purity of our Rite" debate.
The term "Ukraine" is as old as "Rus'" and perhaps older as is the most ancient name of our people "Roxolania" or the "White Alany."
I remember how our parish priest, Fr. Bohdan Lypsky, was called a "Russophile" for bringing us back to our Byzantine-Kyivan traditions.
He was always careful to draw a line between the Russian and Ukrainian traditions which he said were quite different in spirit and tone.
Some of our priests in our eparchy got themselves into trouble not because of their devotion to the Eastern traditions of the Ukrainian Church, but because they uncritically assumed that the Russian Church tradition was and is the ultimate liturgical standard to which the Ukrainian Church must aspire.
And where our Church failed to reflect the Russian traditions, there that is referred to, by them, as "Latinization."
Historically, I think the case can be made that both Latinization and Russification have been both detrimental and beneficial to our people and our Church, depending on the time frame and who it was, at that time, that was coming after us
.
But both Ukrainian Orthodox and Catholic Churches are on the look out for Russification and the Orthodox especially in our community have tried to "de-Russify" themselves or, as Met. Ohienko called the process "Vidmoskovlennya."
But there are those parishioners who see ANY Easternization as "Russification" and I don't know what to do about them
.
One thing to do is to get the priest to visit Ukraine for a while and then come back to serve here.
When he does this or that during the Liturgy that appear as "Russification" by the faithful, he can then always say, "Well, this is how our Church in Ukraine does it and I'm just following our true Ukrainian tradition . . ."
"Ah, nu, in that case . . ."
Ultimately, to be for our "Rus'" traditions is also to be for the term "Ukraine" since most Ukies today understand that term in the way handed down to them and interpreted for them by our Polish and Russian imperial brothers.
Alex
