www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall UAOC-Sobornopravna

In another thread, there has been some discussion about the "Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church-Sobornopravna" under Metropolitan Stephan.

As far as I understand from their homepage www.uaoc.org [uaoc.org] they have no direct relationship to the UAOC in Ukraine. They were, it seems, under the UOC-KP for a while, but recently they consecrated a former deacon of the UOC-KP and gave him the title "Metropolitan-Archbishop of Kyiv and all Rus'Ukraine". Still, Metropolitan Stephan of Toronto remains the Primate of the synod.

Recently there seems to have beem a schism within this juridiction. The link to the Western European eparchy have been removed from their homepage without any explanation. According to the Western European homepage http://site.voila.fr/F.C.O./ , the eparchy was granted a tomos of autocephalicy by the FORMER primate of the UAOC-Sobornopravna, Metropolitan Alexis, and it now calls it self "Eglise Orthodoxe Occidentale".

Fr.Lev said they were not a "play church" but compared them to ROCOR. But I'm not sure what to think, judging from the information on their homepage they seem a bit suspicious to me.

However, I don't really have enough information to really make a jugdement about them. Does anyone else have some more information about this jurisdiction?

Christian

Dear Christian,

Here in Toronto, every UGCC parish acts like it is "sobornopravna" and "avtokefalna!"

Alex

Dear Christian -

It all remains a bit hazy, but the Western Europeans - who I think are nearly all converts -have linked up with some vagante Mickey-Mouse American Orthodox Patriarchate. The UAOC sobornopravna seems to have washed their hands of them and is taking European clergy who refuse to be part of this schism. I have a friend who is one of these clergy. From what I see through him, the UAOC sobornopravna is legitimate and sound.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Slava Isusu Christu!

I talked with Metropolitan Philip back in 99. He was very humble and had a deep love for the Ukrainian and Carpatho-Rusyn Byzantine Catholic Churches. I most certainly believe, although "canonical" Orthodox in America dispute his Juridiction's legitimacy, nevertheless, His Beatitude has valid Episcopal Orders and himself and his clergy and people are very Orthodox and at the same time being also very Ukrainian-Byzantine Catholic in spirit; it's interesting, they have a deep love and respect for the Holy Father and yet are Orthodox. What a joy! The UAOC could not be classed as a vagante group; it has real Churches, real people and truly valid Orders. Many Years to His Beatitude Philip!

In Christ,


Robert Horvath

I'm slightly confused by the last posting. The First Hierarch of the UAOC sobornopravna in America is Metropolitan Stefan.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Yes it's Stephan; I was thinking about Metropolitan Philip (Antiochian) at the time.

It was early:)

Regharding the "Orthodoxy" of this uncanonical group. They have "glorified" several Western saints who are not Orthodox saints and there is even a fraternity linked to this Church and dedicated to St. Francis of Asissi.

http://www.franciserafin.es.vg

How can this be Orthodox?

Please be careful with your use of words. This Franciscan nonsense is not part of the sobornopravna, but of the vagante minded schismatics that left the UAOC to share communion with some vagante 'American Patriarchate'. This is the sort of heretical mentality the American UAOC bishops were trying to contain, but to no avail. I have been in touch with Metropolitan Michael over the last few days and have to say that there is nothing unOrthodox about this Church. As for uncanonical. How can they be uncanonical when they were granted a tomos of autocephaly and received a canonical episcopate?

The UAOC sobornopravna should not be judged by the rubbish on the Spanish website. The Spanish website is neither Orthodox or linked to the UAOC, no matter what lies the vagantes of 'Bishop' Pablo, 'Metropolitan' Kallistos and his army of newly 'consecrated' bishops may spread. They are schismatics and should be considered such. THEY DO NOT BELONG TO THE UAOC SOBORNOPRAVNA!!!

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, mok and sinner.

Concerning the canonicity of this jurisdiction, I am still not convinced.

"How can they be uncanonical when they were granted a tomos of autocephaly and received a canonical episcopate?"

From whom did they recieve a tomos of autocephality?

At one time they were under the juridiction of Patriarch Philaret of Kiev, why aren't they any more? On what terms did they leave the Kiev Patriarchate?

And their priest in Vancouver, Fr. Demetri Moamar, "served in Damascus, Syria, as Dean for the Patriarch of Antioch, His Beatitude, Ignatius IV, for fourteen years." Why doesn't he anymore? Did he recieve a canonical realese from the Patriarch of Antioch?

Christian

The Ukrainian Autocephalous Church received a Tomos of autocephaly from the Patriarch Gregorious VII of Constantinople in 1924 and the Apostolic lineage was ensured by Patriarch Dionisii of Warsaw in 1941.

The UAOC continued in exile, but in the light of the reception of various Ukrainian groups into the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Constantinople changed its tune and branded the free autocephalists (in exile) as uncanonical schismatics.

This is the way the story has been related to me, though I am not a Church historian or cleric of the sobornopravna. However, I have checked out basic facts, and they seem to back up this purported history.

Are they 'uncanonical' simply because they stand free of Constantinople and don't feel forced to trawl the 'Orthodox social club' for recognition. They don't need to stamp of approval from Constantinople to possess the fullness of the Church.

As for the Kyiv Patriarchate link, and that of an individual priest, I remain woefully ignorant and not particularly interested. I am an outside observer, observing good fruit on this tree whilst other trees labelled 'Orthodox' produce bitter and rotten fruit. 'By their fruits shall ye know them'.


Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Reverend Father,

Actually, Most Blessed Dionisii (Valedinskii)
was never a Patriarch, but the Orthodox Metropolitan of Warsaw. Autocephaly was granted
in 1924 to the Polish (i.e. existing in the territory of Polish Republic) Orthodox Church.
Under German occupation, Metropolitan Dionisii
was at first replaced by Bishop Seraphim (Lade)
of Berlin, but when he accepted Germans' terms
(change of Church's name into "Holy Autocephalous
Orthodox Church in the Generalgouvernement" and
consecration of two Ukrainian hierarchs) he
returned to his see.
It's true that Bishops from that jurisdiction
formed in 1942 the "second" Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church and consecrated many
other bishops. Almost all episcopate of mentioned UAOC escaped from Ukraine before return of Soviet
troops. In 1949 (?) in German town of Aschaffenburg a schism occurred - Bishop Gregory
(Ohiychuk) severed communion with the rest of the
UAOC. Bishop Gregory formed the UAOC Sobornopravna, the smallest Ukrainian Orthodox
jurisdiction outside Ukraine.

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter

I didn't realise I'd typed 'Patriarch'. This was a mistake as I know the Polish Church is only autonomous. Did Constantinople not grant autocephaly to the UAOC directly?

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner

Constantinople could not to do so, as the request
was from the Polish Church (part of Moscow
Patriarchate, since 1918 uder Polish rule) supported by the Polish government. The only existing at those times Ukrainian Autocephalous
Orthodox Church was that of Basil Lypkivs'kyi,
metropolitan consecrated by laying hands of
clergymen and laity (without bishops). Such
Church had no possibility to obtain any recognition from Constantinople and, of course,
never applied for any.
BTW, UAOC had no structures in Polish Republic.


Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter

Many thanks, Subdeacon Peter,

This is very interesting. In its history, the UOAC sobornopravna website says:-

"1924 - A Tomos was issued by His All-Holiness Gregorios VII, Ecumenical Patriarch, re-establishing the historic Kyivan-Rus (Ukrainian) Metropolitanate as an Autocephalous Church, placing the responsibility of establishing a new Synod of Bishops upon His Beatitude, the Metropolitan-Archbishop of Warsaw, Dionisij Waledynskyj."

Is this straight history, or heavily doctored?

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

If what you've just posted is NOT true, then a lot of books and articles I've seen need to have their authors contacted and definite revisions to what they have always assumed need to be made!

Alex

The All-Merciful Lord bless you Alex -
s prazdnikom!

Although I don't like the microbeards and am a russophile (or should it be rus'ophile ) I have been very impressed by Metropolitan Michael and the loving openess, yet traditional Orthodox of the sobornopravnists. Having heard of the moves Bukovinan and Gallician Old Believers towards the aftokephalna in the 1920's and 1930's (thankyou Diak!) I contacted Vladyka Michael and was greeted with great love and openess. I was very impressed with the depth of his answers.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner

Dear Father Mark:

It wasn't my intention to attack the UAOC, but this site does say the fraternity is part of the UAOC-Sobornopravna. Maybe I'm just a victim of misinformation from the vagantes, who masquerade as one Church but they aren't that church. It's some kind of confusing, but the site has a link that takes you to the page of the Spobornopravna Church which venerates Met. Andrew of Lviv and which was mentioned before.

Father Mark, from whatI know, I am not sure which of the UOAC's is but the UOAC was uncanonical and some of the orders were doubtful. It is my understanding that as no Bishops wanted to join them, they consacrated one with the hands of a dead Bishop and then the autocephalists called for the creation of a separate Church with married Bishops, liturgy in Ukrainian, etc. Is this episode true, do you have inforrmation about this?

Please, please understand, no offense is taken. It is good that we discuss these things and learn.

The first UOAC is distinct from the second, as Alex I think once pointed out. As I understand it, you are very right in what you say about the first UAOC, but the refoundation(?) of the aftokefalna in the 1940's was on sound footing, with the help of Metropolitan Dionisii of Warsaw.

I am told that the Western European Metropolia, or whatever they call themselves, have no link to the UAOC sobornopravna anymore - whatever they claim. I hope that a statement will be made soon, in order to clarify the situation. What I do know, is that many European clergy have been misinformed and simply NOT informed about what has happened with the sobornopravna. Metropolitan Michael/Mikhailo has received one of my closest friends who refused to acknowledge the European schism, and having received some of the Spanish clergy is taking apostolic responsibility for all who remain faithful to Holy Orthodoxy and the Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church sobornopravna.

The Western European Metropolia is a schism and the whole episode is so sad. I see that the 'Metropolitan Kallistos' has been consecrating bishops left, right and centre in order to create his own synod. Presumably, on of his initial co-consecrators was a Syriac bishop whom he received. Since this bishop was a monophysite and NOT ORTHODOX, I would be very interested to know how he was received. I do not know, but knowing the attitude of this Kallistos, I would not be surprised if the method was uncanonical. This is not tittle-tattle, but a serious question, as it has implications on the consecrations that they have done together.

The UAOC sobornopravna desperately needs to set everyone straight on what has happened here, as it causes confusion and great spiritual harm. I can neither understand or believe the lack of response to this awful affair.

As for the veneration of Metropolitan Andrij, this was covered on another thread a couple of weeks ago. It's very interesting and well worth reading.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, mok and sinner.

Dear Snoopers,

The first UAOC in 1921 did indeed consecrate their Metropolitan and another bishop involving thirty priests. These two then consecrated a hierarchy of bishops, separate from Moscow et al.

Most of all these were killed by the Bolsheviks.

There is more than one Ukie Orthodox Church that calls itself the "UAOC." And a number have glorified their Metropolitan, Basil Lypkivsky and also Met. Michael Borestky, as saints and Hieromartyrs.

(Even the Ukrainian Catholic Patriarch Josef Slipyj acknowledged the validity of this UAOC, at least in private by way of letter, and always referred to Lypkivsky as "that great Metropolitan and Martyr.")

Many Ukie Catholics I know think very sympathetically of Basil Lypkivsky in terms of a great hero and defender of his Ukrainian church and people etc.

The canonical aspect is an issue, to be sure.

The UAOC that you mention does NOT publicly venerate Met. Andrew Sheptytsky as a saint - they ONLY concur that he should be glorified a saint by the "universal church."

Even the Moscow Patriarchate in Western Ukraine, following the "synod" of 1946 (by the way, do you believe that "synod" was a valid, canonical one? ) allowed for public panakhydas for Met. Andrew Sheptytsky up until 1954.

At the end of that "synod," the "Holy Hieromartyr" Gabriel Kostelnyk read a panegyric in honour of Met. Andrew Sheptytsky saying that he laid the foundations for a 'return to Orthodoxy' in western Ukraine.

That could all be very true - I don't know and I don't want to argue about it (has someone been going around saying this recently?).

So, even the Moscow Patriarchate allowed for the possibility of a local tribute to this Catholic Metropolitan, probably to let the "transition" to Orthodoxy occur more smoothly.

The UAOC in Ukraine is located primarily in western Ukraine where the memory of Met. Andrew is highly venerated, even among the Orthodox.

And he is highly venerated here among most Ukies.

So being supportive of his cause is simply good politics for starters!

And, the New Skete in the OCA in the USA continues to venerate St Francis of Assisi and St Clare - they continue to print icons of them both.

Many Russian Orthodox emigres to France honoured Our Lady of Lourdes (as Ware notes), St Therese of Lisieux and Our Lady of La Sallette.

Fr. John Meyenorff once wrote to me to say that the private veneration of those who were not formally Orthodox is NOT condemned by Orthodoxy.

So you really went off on the deep end there, Amigo!

Alex

Dear Alex,

Is the second aftokfalna really distinct from the first. I would hope so!!!

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

Yes, indeed!

There is no question but that the second UAOC formation discarded the idea that 12 priests or more can consecrate a bishop.

But I have read of at least two instances in Eastern Church history where this occurred - in Alexandria and in Persia (?).

The Kyivan Canons of the first UAOC formation decreed that bishops could be consecrated from among married clergy, that Ukrainian only was to be used in the services, as opposed to the "Russified Slavonic," that Ukraine as "Our God-protected and God-Beloved Mother" was to be commemorated at the Liturgy etc.

What this first UAOC did, canonical or not, was to begin the movement for a truly Ukrainianized Orthodox Church for the Ukrainian people.

Although the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine calls itself "Ukrainian Orthodox," there is very little that is "Ukrainian" about it.

(They don't even want to learn Ukrainian - and if I had to then . . . ).

But even the now canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada here does still venerate the memory of Basil Lypkivsky.

This situation with the first UAOC does, in some ways, resemble the crisis the Old Believers faced.

It is just that the Old Believers opted to remain priestless, if being "priestly" meant to accept Nikonian orders.

How do these compare, Father, - to remain without priests and sacraments, or to try the kind of experiment, that seemed to have historical precedent, that the first UAOC did?

Alex

Dear Alex, we could cite the course taken by those who went beyond the Starayavera and became khlysty with lay leadership and lay administration of so-called 'sacraments'.

Actually, there were Old Believers who considered 'the corpse option' for 'consecration', but came to their senses before doing anything stupid!

Were there not hierarchs who thought the Ukrainianisation of the Church desirable before the revolution (Theophan of Poltava?)?

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk andf sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

I'm not trying to defend the first formation of the UAOC in every respect and I have no wish whatever, please believe me, to cast aspersions of any kind on any aspect of the Old Believers, including the bezpopovtsy.

This is a question that has always intrigued me.

The Ukrainianization of the Church in Ukraine was indeed defended by Saint Theophane the New Recluse (I believe the ROCOR has glorified him a saint) and others.

But nothing was really done and it was not in the interest of the Russian episcopal rulers of the Church in Ukraine to follow this course.

St Basil Lypkivsky did, in fact, travel to other Orthodox Patriarchates in the hopes of obtaining episcopal consecration - but no one would touch the issue for fear of Moscow.

He exhausted every avenue, save going to Rome, in this respect.

And the Ukrainianization issue was an important one. It had actually less to do with assimilation issues, but with the issue of growing alienation from Orthodoxy among Ukrainians as a result of a growing disaffection with the foreign spiritual culture of Russian Orthodoxy.

This occurred simultaneously with the movements of national consciousness-raising etc. that developed among many nations that were part of crumbling empires at the time.

Alex

Alex your words are gentle and peaceful and are taken as such!

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, unworthy monk.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

Well, I'm working on it!

And conversing with you is like a rejuvenating breeze of fair British weather!

(You don't want to know what kind of weather we're having over here in the far-flung reaches of your former empire! ).

Alex

Actually I thought that the Western Metropolia or whatever is called was closer to Patriarch Filaret's Church than to the other UOAC. The fact that many groups call themselves UOAC causes the confusion.

I am not opposed to the veneration of Catholic saints at all, I have stamps of some saints in my house, saints who are highly venerated here. I would say that St Francis is a saint of the universal Church too, but what I mean is that the Fraternity could indeed cause a confusion among Orthodox in latin American countries, were the differences between Orthodox and Catholics are not so clear for many.

Regarding the synods of 1948 and the incorporation of Greek Catholics to Orthodox Churches it is certainly deplorable, because those unions were imposed with terror and violence, and the fact that those Bishops doidn't have a choice to decide what they wanted to do would make that synod uncanonical (but both Romanian and Russian Churches atill say the decree it's still in force, wdon't they)

hello everyone.
I have a source whom I will not name who is very inciteful on this "sobornoparavna" church. "metropolitan" Stefan is on who left the Kyiv Patriarchate because he was not chosen to be a bishop by PAt. Filaret, could be said to be a self proclaimed bishop. Alexis was given a "bribe" in order to concecrate 'Met' Stephan.

2nd "met" MOISEI is one who comes from a worse situation. He was a UOC USA priest before the union w/ Constantinople. HE then joined to the Kyiv Patriarchate and was tonsured a monk.
He started to claim that he was given a "message from God" and God told him that he (then father Kulik) will be the future Patriarch of Kyiv and Moscow and also the Pope in Rome at the same time. PAT. FILARET suspended him and fr Oleh Kulik came to the US. He was accepted by the "soboronopravna" church and then concecrated a bishop then metropolitan.

Overall this church is very strange and their claimed lineage from the old Sobornapravna church is in question. The true Sobornopravna church under Met. Ojijchuk converted to the Kyiv Patriarchate when it was established.

BE CAREFULL WHeN DEALING WITH THIS CHURCH. IT IS "Fishy". I HEARD MANY STRANGE STORIES ABOUT THEM ALSO.

Z BOHOM
UKIPATR

Dear Ukipatr,

In essence, the sad divisions among the Ukie Orthodox and Catholics will really only come to an end with their unification in one Kyivan Patriarchate.

But Ukie Orthodox and Catholics are today closer to each other than they ever have been in history, canonicity et al. notwithstanding.

And I think they realize that their internal divisions are the product of external, foreign church/state politics (as other Eastern communities also believe about their own internal divisions).

Also, I made a mistake in naming "Michael" Boretsky - he was "Nicholas" Boretsky and a direct relation to our Eastern Canadian Eparch Emeritus, Bishop Isidore.

Met. Nicholas Boretsky actually discarded the Kyivan Canons and refused to admit married men to the episcopate in his church while beginning the process of normalizing the canonical status of the UAOC of 1921.

Arrested by the Soviets, he was tortured to death, having lost his mind in Soviet prisons.

When he was asked to sign a document stating there was no religious persecution in Russia, St Nicholas Boretsky simply said, "If there were no religious persecution, I would not be in prison."

Alex

Dear Snoopers,

Is that what you think?

Then, in response to your post, I just wanted to leave you with these thoughts.

You are a responsible Orthodox Christian with a well-balanced historical understanding of and sensitivity to many issues.

Alex

Dear ukrpatr:

I'm not sure if your screen name refers to soley to your support for a Ukrainian patriarchate or if you yourself are a hopeful candidate. All in all, I've agreed with some of your previous posts, but the comments here are neither insightful or accurate. Rather, they seem snidish and caddy at best. It would benefit you to check your "source" that you claim is "insightful" and confirm with substantiation, the various "information" that he is passing out. Many have certain agendas to fulfill and will say and spread falsities in order to discredit what they see as threats or opposition.

In addition, your comments on some other issues here have not been necessarily complementary to the Ukrainian Church but rather emphasize the negativity and intrigue that some people thrive on in the church. Rather than focus on what vestments a certain bishop may be wearing or will wear in the future, we should concentrate on the "fruits" of a particular church's ministry. As Fr. Mark so poignantly remarks, "By their fruits you shall know them."

I too, like many of us, have various "sources" throughout the Ukrainian Church, both Orthodox and Greek Catholic as well as personal contact. Some of these are clergy of the UAOC - Sobornopravna whom I respect. While, as many of you know, I normally do not post on topics of a "political" or derogatory nature, such as this one, the extreme inaccuracies expressed, as well as disregard for the general demeanor that our Administrator requests us to uphold, compel me to do so in this instance.

You quote your "source" as saying that Metropolitan Stephan of the UAOC-Sobornopravna left the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP) because he was not chosen to be a bishop by Patriarch Filaret. My own knowledge of the situation is actually quite the opposite, that His Beatitude was indeed elected bishop during a synod of the UOC-KP in 1995 or 96, but due to the political ambitions of others in the US, was given grief over the issue. Later, Metropolitan Vasyl Bodnarchuk of Ternopil (who at the time was the authorized acting patriarch of the UAOC in Ukraine, during a period when Patriarch Dymitry was inactive - this is documented by history) issued real documents (available on the uaoc.org website), authorizing Metropolitan Stephan to establish the UAOC in North & South America in the position of bishop. The authenticity of this hramota has never been questioned, that I am aware of. Subsequent to this, Metropolitan Stephan received episcopal ordination in the United States, in fulfillment of the hramota of Metropolitan Bodnarchuk. The edict of the Ternopil Metropolitan was confirmed and strengthened by an election here in the US during a Sobor of the UAOC of North & South America, in 1998. So, given these two distinct confirmations of his episcopal role, Metropolitan Stephan can hardly be considered a "self proclaimed" bishop, as you allege. The accusation that Metropolitan Alexis of New York was given a "bribe" in order to consecrate Metropolitan Stephan is completely untrue as well as liable. It is the first time that I ever heard that particular falsity, so your "source" had better check his information very carefully. In fact, the consecrations by Metropolitan Alexis, only serve to strengthen this particular branch of the church's ties to historical Ukrainian Orthodoxy, through the episcopate of Metropolitan Ohijchuk (consecrated in May, 1942, along with most other Ukrainian bishops who later found themselves in the Diaspora. Those who remained in Ukraine met their fate in the gulags and death camps of the Soviet regime.)

Your information about Metropolitan Moisei of Ukraine is equally dubious. While he was a part of the UOC-KP and also a priest of S. Boundbrook in the US, it would be good to have concrete evidence about alleged "revelations from God" that you claim the Metropolitan says he received, before compromising yourself by cooperating in the spreading of such rumors. It is true that the church in general and the Ukrainian Church in particular has long been the victim of much gossip, half truths and falsities which some of our people like to spread with complete disregard for both the Christian spirit and the legal ramifications of libelous or slanderous rumor-spreading. I am surprised that you would lower yourself to this level of "church chat" and gossip, especially on a public forum.

The standing policy of the Byzantine Forum is that respect be shown for hierarchs of all denominations and jurisdictions, regardless of their official status or the opinions of some. You have violated this policy in the post we are discussing and perhaps even in other comments made about bishops and clergy. I would suggest that the Administrator issue a warning about the proper etiquette required on our forum.

You further state that: "Overall this church is very strange and their claimed lineage from the old Sobornopravna church is in question. The true Sobornopravna church under Met. Ojijchuk converted to the Kyiv Patriarchate when it was established."

This is obviously and incredibly inaccurate, given the fact that Metropolitan Alexis of New York, the rightful successor to Metropolitan Andrei Prazky, who in turn was the successor to Metropolitan Hryhorij Ohijchuk, (of which there is documented proof as well) is not, nor ever has been a member of the UOC-KP of Patriarch Filaret. Just because several bishops once associated with Metropolitan Hryhorij did in fact join the UOC-KP when it was established in the US, does not mean that the "true Sobornopravna church" "converted" to the Kyiv Patriarchate, as you claim or that the church ceased to exist. To my knowledge, while Bishop Alexander Bukovitz of Detroit is still a member of the UOC-KP, the bishops in Texas, who were consecrated by Metropolitan Hryhorij are not at the present time, members of the synod of Patriarch Filaret. Although these bishops were or are part of the UOC-KP does not automatically mean that the UAOC Sobornopravna was dissolved into the Kyiv Patriarchate, which in fact, it was not.

For the record, after the Hramota of Metropolitan Vasyl Bodnarchuk, Metropolitan Stephan of the UAOC of North & South America entered into communion with Metropolitan Alexis, successor to Metropolitan Hryhorij, thus bringing the two jurisdictions into union with each other. The two Metropolitans (Alexis and Stephan) continue to work closely together and the Sobornopravna church has greatly expanded during the late 1990s up to the present day.

You state: "BE CAREFULL WHeN DEALING WITH THIS CHURCH. IT IS "Fishy". I HEARD MANY STRANGE STORIES ABOUT THEM ALSO.'

This is complete hearsay and at the level of petty gossip. It is disappointing that you would resort to this level, unless there is a planned agenda that we are unaware of. The church is plagued with many "strange stories" about numerous clergy and hierarchy and perhaps, just perhaps, there are strange and "fishy" stories circulating about even yourself and those whom you claim as "sources" that are very "insightful." We cannot either as Christians or as responsible adults place trust in every rumor or story that comes from the mouths of those who feel they have all the answers. I will offer to you your own advice, which is to "Be careful when dealing with church gossip." It is often misguided and mixed-up and can reflect poorly on those who circulate it.

One of your recent posts stated that:

"Don't think that everything is fine and dandy with the Roman Catholics in Ukraine, we have as many problems with them as we do with The Russian Orthodox. By the way, it sucks that we can celebrate a liturgy with non-Ukrainians of a different Rite but cannot celebrate with our own brother of the same tradition!"

The same can be said of the situation with your friends in South Boundbrook who can concelebrate with members of the Russian Orthodox Church but not with those belonging to churches that are indigenously, firmly and dedicatedly Ukrainian in identity and tradition, including the UAOC, UAOC-Sobornopravna, UOC-KP and of course, the UGCC. Also, please refrain from using words such as "sucks" on this forum. It does not correspond with good manners or a Christian attitude.

Elsewhere you mention:

Also, Patriarch Josyf gave us a true vision of an independent church. . . . Despite all that, I have to admit that Moscow's liturgics are AWESOME. I wish we were as strong in liturgical tradition!

If Patriarch Josyp, whom you seem to admire, stood for an independent Ukrainian church, it is perplexing that you would place the liturgical tradition of the Muscovite Church over and above our own Ukrainian/Ruthenian recension, practices and traditions, many of which pre-date anything that later became standard Russian liturgy. While I will agree that the Russian liturgy can be beautiful in its own way, it is too bad that you feel that our Ukrainian liturgical tradition is not as strong or as "awesome" as that of Moscow. I think many Ukrainians, myself included would beg to differ with this estimation.

I assume that you are rather young compared to others here, since you state that your are interested in the diaconate, but must first finish college. I could be wrong, but if this is the case, I would advise that you allow your spiritual and ecclesiastical life to mature before giving serious consideration to future ordained ministry. Life is a learning experience for all of us, from birth to the grave. During my years as a priest and also during the time of my formation, I have discovered that the things we consider to be of utmost concern and importance at an earlier age (such as vestment style, the legalistic correctness of divine services and adherence to canons and liturgical discipline, proper or improper iconography, the strict observance of this or that rule or typik, politics between jurisdictions and churches, etc. etc) take a back seat to matters of "ultimate importance" as we mature through age and experience. These things teach us that it is Christ, His gospel teaching and of course, faithfulness to the true spirit of our traditions that matter the most and which will bear the most fruit in our ministries and interactions with God's people who come to us for spiritual care. Let your conscience be your guide, and also give serious thought to what is the will of God for your future and that of those you care about. One thing is certain, placing stock in gossip, rumors and false information will not be helpful to you either as a credible individual or a potential minister of God's church.

To our other forum participants in this topic, the so-called "Western Orthodox Church" or "Orthodox-Catholic Fraternity" of Bishop Kallistos of France is not a part of the UAOC. It is true that they were associated with the church for a period of time, but have taken on a decidedly western approach to liturgy and ecclesiology and as Fr. Mark mentions, have consecrated a large amount of bishops in recent months, in order to strengthen their own synod, so as not to have to rely on obedience to the policies of the UAOC. Naturally, much of this did not correspond to the ideals or principles of the UAOC-Sobornopravna or the Ukrainian Church in general and they are no longer a part of the jurisdiction.

Bishops who have a limited or premature understanding of the Orthodox Church are exactly what make what we refer to as "vagante" groups on the fringe of Orthodoxy. One cannot learn the Eastern ethos by reading books or simply desiring conversion in and of itself. It is a way of life that is sustained by regular participation in the liturgical, theological and sacramental life of the Eastern Church. Much of the confusion in the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches today stem from those who feel they have a firm grasp on Orthodoxy but who in fact are still in the learning stages. And, to "mix and match" traditions and practices, based on one's limited knowledge of them or personal preferences, give some churches the questionable appearance that they have. Of course, one is free to to what they choose, but that does not mean that they will either gain respect or recognition from the Eastern Christian community as a whole.

I'm sorry if some of my words to "ukrpatr" have been harsh, but the absurdity of many of the alleged "facts," caused me to feel compelled in good conscience to speak out about these issues. My knowledge of the discussion comes from first hand historical study and personal encounters with the hierarchs being discussed and by "ukrpatr," unjustly portrayed. We always have to be careful not to allow hearsay or personal opinion to color our comments in a public venue such as our forum. The other responses on this thread have been all in all, both fair and accurate and have captured the spirit of the situation in the Ukrainian Church both in regard to the various jurisdictions and the history and spirituality that is characteristic of Ukrainian Orthodox and Ukrainian Greek Catholics throughout the years.

God bless you all,

Fr. Joe

Actually, I believe the Moscow Patriarchate will not let their clergy concelebrate with those of the UOC of USA, despite the fact that the latter are under the EP.

Dave

Bless me a sinner, Father Joseph!

Actually, I think the Administrator should consider you for an internet award (once he gets around to creating one! ).

Dave is quite correct and even the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches of Canada and the U.S. who are in communion with New Rome are given the cold shoulder by some.

The issue of canonicity has been a long-standing one with the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches. In fact, there are those who would seem to like to extend it to the Ukrainian Catholic Church as well - asserting the validity of the Sobor of 1946 and proceeding with the canonization of Fr. Gabriel Kostelnyk as a way to liturgically affirm it as well.

The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox movement in this century did much to restore Orthodoxy to the Ukrainian people, beginning with the Ukrainian language in the services.

St Basil Lypkivsky also researched many, many old Ukrainian church traditions that had been, over time, suppressed and restored many back.

Canonicity was always a problem - but it wasn't for lack of trying. World Orthodoxy has, time and again, refused to be Ukrainian Orthodoxy's friend when it needed friends badly.

All of us Ukies are, in fact, "uncanonical" in the eyes of officialdom, Eastern Catholics often included.

When St Basil Lypkivsky was told that his Church wasn't "canonical" in the eyes of Moscow and others, he was said to have replied, "I don't agree. But if they think that, then at least they will keep their distance from us and won't be too eager to swallow us up."

Patriarch Joseph was also on excellent terms with the autocephalists. No wonder they promote the veneration of Met. Andrij and other Eastern Catholics! Isn't that a wonderful sign of true ecumenical, brotherly love when such a thing could happen?

From what I understand, the UOC-KP and the UAOC in Ukraine number over four thousand parishes between them, and then there are the more than three thousand parishes of the UGCC.

The ROC has about nine thousand in all of Ukraine, but only six thousand in all of "Holy Russia."

The ROC has a solid reason for wanting to hang on to Ukraine and its parishes . . .

But even this shall pass!

Thank you, Father, for such a lucid and informed presentation. Your parishioners are lucky to have you indeed!

(If you ever have any trouble with any, give me their addresses and I'll write to tell them a few sincere words, as they say in Ukrainian! )

Alex

The MPs are losing territory for sure. This week at the official site of the UOC-KP,they informed that another parish from the MPs has joined the UOC-KP in the city of Odessa.
Now, isn't that fantastic?
From what I heard it seems that the UGCC has been working as some kind of mentor to bring both Ukie Orthodox churches together (UOC-KP and UAOC).
Lauro

I would like to echo the words of Fr. Joe: The Byzantine Forum welcomes diverse viewpoints on issues providing that they are posted in the spirit of Christian charity. UKIPATR�s post, however, seems to be more unsubstantiated gossip then anything else. We suggest that, in the future, UKIPATR provide appropriate documentation to substantiate any accusations he makes. Negative events in the life of the Church are appropriate for discussion. But discussion of these events should always be from the perspective of building up the Church and not tearing it down.

TO ALL WHO STAND AGAINST ME!

I stand by my answers and am not taking anything I said back. These are not rumors or stories but facts. Now you will ask well, where's the proof?"
First of all, my sources are very accurate and if i revealed them to you you would then reconsider your knowledge of this church. For the saftey of these individuals I willnot mention their names. This is just a topic I couldnt let by. I am not tearing this church down as a community but am warning about there "governing" body of the church. In short all I can tell you is I have two sources, one of whom was close in dealing with the sobornopravna church. Heleft this church after being in the middle of all of the strange things that happened. I appologize that I cannot give you documentation, but we need to realize that most things that seem persfect are not always what they seem to be.

I am not writting anymore on this topic. I will move on because i see that many are angered by my answers.

UKIPATR

PS

the word "sucks" was used in a context of an informal casual conversation.

I am probably very unwise in attempting to make any comment here - after all I am Latin

However my reaction is that if 'ukipatr' has any firm, ie documented -information that would stand scrutiny he should post it here for all to see - it's no good saying, as he has done above,
<<First of all, my sources are very accurate and if i revealed them to you you would then reconsider your knowledge of this church. For the saftey of these individuals I willnot mention their names. >>

This is really very sad - perhaps the Admin could consider as to whether this unfortunate thread could be closed.

Anhelyna

I am sorry I have not posted sooner, as I had intended to make a comment on this much earlier.

If a person like myself reads a posting like the one Ukipatr has posted, I don't see anything much different than the type of information that is usually posted here by all of us, including me.

It is the nature of this medium that things are said colored with opinion. And really nothing is sacred here, although it should be. People have a high regard for this forum, thank you Administrator, the spiritual formations of individuals are influenced by this forum and we DO want to remember that when we post.

How much information is posted with documentation referenced?
VERY LITTLE

How much is posted here that smacks of opinion?
VERY MUCH

How much do we read here that is basically hearsay?
PLENTY

How often are hierarchs, living or dead referred to in a less than respectful manner?
QUITE OFTEN

Not to mention the possibility that what he says may actually be true, whether we want to hear it or not! LEGENDS AND MYTHS ABOUND IN THIS FORUM MASQUERADING AS FACT. From episodes that happened 500 years ago to things that happened 50 years ago and five years ago people are collecting tidbits of info and putting spin on them.

We are all guilty of these things in one way or another, myself included. If it is not proper etiquette for this forum I am sorry we must all try to do better.

UKIPATR, I am sorry you were singled out for this

Michael

Brother Michael,

Your post is quite true, extreme ethnic pride can cloud our minds and effect our responses and thoughts. Most times Eastern/Western is sufficent for Catholics & Orthodox, of course its my humble opinion.

james

Alex, Alex, Alex:

Though I am officially logged off this site I do come and lurk on occassion. And it seems on the few times that I do, you are giving another one of your 'farewell speeches'! What gives? You are like the little boy who always cried wolf.

Anyhow, today I decided to 'lurk' and came across another one of your statements that I just couldn't let go by. So I decided to do an 'log on' then 'log off' just to answer it. Just couldn't let it ride Since I lurk occassionaly can you post the next one under the heading 'Alex's Farewell Post Part XXX?' -

[The ROC has about nine thousand in all of Ukraine, but only six thousand in all of "Holy Russia."]

From the Russian Orthodox Website -

In the Russian Orthodox Church today there are 128 dioceses (for comparison, there were 67 diocese in 1989), 19000 parishes (6893 in 1988), and nearly 480 monasteries (18 in 1980). These figures point vividly to an all-round revival of church life taking place under the primatial leadership of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia.

Looks like you are off by only about 13,000 parishes!

Anxiously awaiting your next 'farwell' speech!

OrthoMan 'Orthodox In Communion with Orthodoxy'

Dear Orthoman:

Always nice to hear from you.

If you read the ROC page carefully you will note that the 128 diocese include Russia as well as the far and near abroad. Alex accounts for 15000 parishes, in Russia and Ukraine, of the nineteen thousand total. He is not off by 13000 but at most 4 thousand. Moreover, how many are parishes are there in the various non-Russian states of the FSU? How many under the MP in the "far abroad"? Alex's numbers seem close; it is you who have made a gross miscalculation.

djs

Our Lady's slave of love,

Thank you for your comments. All you said is true. Its is kind of difficult to put documents on a forum. Overall, i'm done talking about the sobornopravna church. Everyone can make their own decision as to how to look at this church

Z BOHOM

UKIPATR

Dear Orthoman,

It is always good to see you post here! I used to see you post on another site, but you seem to have logged off for good there!

There are two issues you raise and I wanted to address both.

I sometimes get into a very heated argument over matters that do matter to me. I do take things personally and I am a bit sensitive, just like I am to your post right now.

Sometimes I feel that the words I read about me indicate that I should leave here. And I follow suit by saying I will and then try to stay off this Forum.

But it is difficult to continue to do so when people apologise to you and tell you you've misinterpreted what they intended to say.

I never knew how strongly I really felt about certain issues until they are raised. And I still feel strongly about them.

I'm sorry if my waffling to and fro from here appears like the boy who cried wolf. I like to think that even the hottest of emotions may be cooled in the Christian spirit of forgivenes and love.

I'm still not used to discussing things that are very sacred to me, including cultural identity etc. And the Administrator, during our last outing, did admit he was being "firm" in his convictions, but did clarify what the purpose of his "firmness" was all about.

And at least I DO come back to this Christian, democratic and loving forum, Big Guy.

I don't leave permanently only to come back when I feel the need to snipe at someone, as your post above SEEMS to be about.

As a sociologist, I know that statistics are only as good as how you define them. The numbers reported do not include the neighbouring and now independent states of the former Soviet Union. The Orthodox source I reported from gave those numbers. If another Orthodox source gives other numbers, I am sorry. I don't live in Russia or Ukraine and I would ask the Orthodox (in communion with Orthodoxy) to get their numbers straight.

My only point in reporting them was to show that Russia has a lot to lose in terms of parishes and other material considerations if the MP were to "let the Ukrainian Church go."

Do you deny that Orthodoxy in Ukraine is very strong indeed? I believe it is stronger there than in Russia, but that is just my view. One cannot measure strength in terms of parish numbers alone.

Do you deny the MP has no material interest in hanging on to Ukraine's Orthodox Churches?

Did you not, at one time, admit that Moscow should have ensured a patriarchate for Ukraine - something you said would have avoided the troubles they are experiencing there now?

So I can't really get a handle on where you are coming from, other than to snipe from the protection of a "self-imposed exile."

Why would you wish to be exiled? Who offended you and, if they did, why don't you raise this and demand an apology? Or else take it to the Administrator?

At least when I leave here, ostensibly to cool down, I cease all contact with people at the Forum, except for Angela of Glasgow.

I would invite you to become a regular poster here and raise your gripes which, as I understand, are gripes that even some of your Orthodox (ICWO) colleagues see as being quite strident and ecumenically unacceptable.

I, for one, am not here to try and change your views about "Uniates" or your contempt for those of us who call ourselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome."

I think you always enriched us with your arguments and perspectives on theology as well as on spirituality with your veneration of St Panteleimon and your deep piety.

If you don't like me or others' perspectives, we invite you to come back from exile and speak your mind.

We may argue with you, but we won't ask you to leave or tell you to stuff it.

You are too sincere a Man of God and devoted to Orthodoxy for anyone to demonstrate disrespect to you.

And ultimately, what you think of me and my goings and comings here is something that I deserve.

I love and esteem you as the great Christian you are and I hope you can respond with the same love to come back here regularly to tell Alex he is full of crap or else is just full of BS (Byzantine Silliness).

And if you want to hang me for bad statistics, then you'll just have to get in line behind some of my professors . . .

Alex
Orthodox in communion with Rome

Dear Ukipatr,

I am NOT one of those who didn't like or appreciate your post here.

I just don't know enough about the subject to comment on it.

What you say are things I've heard and read about elsewhere.

The point is, and it is well taken, that a number of our UAOC groups have unfortunately had a bad canonical past and this has led to problems within world Orthodoxy for it - even though world Orthodoxy never was and is not a friend of Ukrainian Orthodoxy period.

Alex

Dear djs,

Thank you for your kindness, dear brother!

It is people like you who make me feel ashamed whenever I do threaten to leave here for good!

Alex

Dear Alex:
My pleasure.

Dear Alex,

I don't know about you, but I'm really glad that the administrator designed the door to the Forum to be a revolving one! Keeps the likes of you and me and the others who post here coming back even when it seems that some don't want us here and tell us so. :rolleyes:

Just don't forget and leave in heat by the fire exit! It doesn't revolve!

Steve

Dear Inawe,

Yes, the fire exit . . .

And as for the Orthoman, you have to excuse me when I sing:

Who da Man? You da Man! You da ORTHOman!

I hope he didn't go into exile over that!

Alex

Dear Orthoman:

If you're still puzzling about the numbers, here's some from the latest report on religious freedom from the US department of state (released Oct. 7, 2002):

Russia 10,912 registered communities
Ukraine-MP 9423
Belarus-MP 1260
Other FSU and diaspora probably no more that a couple of hundred (e.g, Kazkhstan ~40, Turkmenistan 11, etc.)
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/c7599.htm

So the 19,000 figure looks a little out of date, 22,000 is a better number, about half in Russia and half not in Russia. Maybe the "registered communities" include monasteries and parishes? The numbers may have increased some since the report, but probably not by 5000 (unless they are registering "Mertyve Dushi") which represents half the increase since 1988. It's tough to get close to 19,000 without Ukraine.

djs

Dear djs,

Well, Orthoman is a truly dedicated Orthodox Christian and he thinks nothing of chewing up five or six of me for breakfast each morning!

I wish we had more of him in among us "Orthodox in communion with Rome."

When he did jump on me as he did, he did so in defence of the Orthodox Church.

And for that he is to be truly admired.

Alex

ALEX!
RIGHT ON!

Oooh! Alex is my first official recipient of the Humility of the Day Award.

And don't let the name fool you. I may sometimes forget or off someplace else, so these Humility of the Day Awards may be weekly or even bi-weekly!

Logos Teen