www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Kyivan Patriarchate's Registration Ratified

Dear Friends,

This article about this is at this site:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ukrainian/news4.shtml

President Kuchma of Ukraine confirmed the formal registration as a legal entity the Kyivan Patriarchate that broke away from Moscow.

The President was responding to the action attempted by Ukraine's Attorney General, Michael Potebenko, to cancel the registration of the Kyivan Patriarchate.

Michael Potebenko is a candidate in the upcoming general elections in Ukraine, representing the communist party.

In addition to the communist party's official atheist line, it is also defending the Russian Orthodox Church (!).

According to this article, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyivan Patriarchate has fewer parishes than the Russian Patriarchate in Ukraine (3,000 versus 9,000), but has more members (34% versus 18% for the Russian Patriarchate).

Alex

Dear Alex,

I'm not sure if congratulations are in order or not...especially since I can't read the article! But if they are, and I suspect they are, then congratulations!!

Dear Catholicos,

I love translating foreign articles!

And it's too bad they can't have you as their Catholicos-Patriarch too!

Fr. Bilaniuk once wrote an article about the Ukrainians going for a "Catholicosate" and that way the Kyivan Catholicos would have jurisdiction over Ukrainians world-wide.

I think the title is

And so are you!

Alex

I am glad to hear that democracy is still alive in Ukraine, at least for now. It demonstrates how fragile things really are in many of the former Soviet states. It is my belief that regardless of what one's opinion is on the existence of various churches, that for democracy and freedom to prevail, then all faiths that abide in peace must be permitted to operate.

On a different note, this recent activity also goes to show how closely aligned the communist parties were and still are, with the Russian Orthodox Church - MP. If there was any real question as to the truth of this, then it has just been reaffirmed. Why else would a politician, much less the candidate of the communists, care about the legal existence of any church? Perhaps the communists do not care sincerely about religious faith in and of itself, but they are certainly interested in the level of cooperation that is possible between their people and those in the Moscow Patriarchate.

I regret to some extent, having to always come across as so critical of the MP, but there are far too many opportunities that present themselves to speak for the truth and identify the ways in which it violates both human rights and Christian freedom. As I've said before, we do not have to agree in matters of doctrine or ecclesiology, but we'd sure better stand up for the right to disagree on these issues or else, the consequences can be very grave indeed. We've seen too many examples of these, to sit by idly and let it happen again. In short, all churches are in danger of persecution and extinction if two-sided and hypocritical ideologies are allowed to gain control and take away the freedom to form one's own conscience, that is, all churches except those who are accomplices of the government. After all, the Soviet constitution allowed for freedom of religion - let us not forget this.

Alex, what do you think was the goal of this most recent attempt to wipe out the free and indigenous Ukrainian Orthodox Church? Besides the obvious bias towards Moscow and their continuing saga of keeping tight control of Ukraine's vast amount of churches, what can be accomplished by the government through limiting freedoms? Obviously, the communist party is still strong and has the same goals that it always did, but what does this mean for the integration of Ukraine into the United Nations and the European and larger community of western civilization? Actions like this certainly won't improve Ukraine's chances of becoming a respected nation, at least not in most democratic nations' opinions. One must ponder what goes through people's minds.

We need to pray for the people of Ukraine, that they vote according to principles of freedom and that democracy continue to progress in this country that has given us so much. This whole matter is disturbing and frightening for our people. In know many people in Ukraine that are firmly committed to democracy, despite the difficult situations and hardships that have occurred economically, since its independence. But, we know that what the majority of people desire is not always accomplished when dishonest politics are involved. God protect Ukraine and let freedom prevail.

Fr. Joe

Thank you, Alex, for your compliments, which are always gratefully accepted. I'm glad people think I'm still cool.

I don't know about you, but I personally think it's a good thing I'm not Catholicos-Patriarch of the Ukrainians. I'd probably try to bring them back to the Pre-Chalcedonian faith. :p (I really wouldn't, but imagine how much better Ukraine might be with churches dedicated to the headless Severus ...it's good to dream.)

And Fr. Joe, it's good to see you back here. Hope all is well...may I ask for your blessing and your prayers for me? Please?

Do you think this will lead to them being canonical in the eyes of the Orthodox world?
-uc

Alex, your link is no longer valid.

Firstly, I think it was awful that the whole matter was brought up in the first place (see the topic "Ukrainian News"). Kuchma's intervention is good, but shouldn't have had to happen.

There is too much politics involved in religion in Ukraine. I am sick of it.

Them (the KP) being legal is nothing for world Orthodox. ROCOR is also a legal entity and so are lots of cults, but that doesn't matter at all.

Have a good Lent everyone. More prayer, less politics...

Daniil

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Yes, if they can unite with the other smaller Ukrainian Orthodox Churches. The general feeling is that once a NATIONAL church is established, it will be eventually recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and other Orthodox Churches as ligitimate and thus canonical.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

So once the 'Orthodox World' recognizes them, they become canonical and legit? Why aren't they now in the eyes of God? I don't understand that it has to be the EP and others for them to become spiritually legit. I am defending the KP members who maybe holy and God-fearing people, like maybe some of its bishops, priests, or monks and layity. I have heard good and bad things about Filaret so I won't go there. Last summer when I was at the newly rebuilt St. Michael's Golden- Domed Monastery (KP), I met a monk who seemed like a really holy man. I would have no problem attending services in a "non- canonical" KP church. Aren't we Ukrainian Catholics seen non-canoncal in the eyes of the Moscow Patriarchate? So does that make us not legit? I agree with Daniil in that less polotics and more prayer.
-ukrainiancatholic

Thank you, Mor Ephrem. I'm glad to see you here too. May God's peace and blessing be upon you! Please also pray for me and the work God has given me to do. Sometimes life is so busy, that we all need the prayers of others to continue to do the best we can. Thank you for your kindness and friendship. I want to try to explain, in the best way possible, some of the history and characteristics of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, in the hope that others may come to understand where people are coming from and what their experience has been. There is so much to tell that time and space do not permit one to do it adequately, but nevertheless, I will do my best. To be sure, some may not agree with the rights of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, but I can only relate what has been recounted to me and what those Ukrainians I know are sincerely convicted of.

I agree, Daniil, that there is far too much politics involved in the church, especially in Ukraine, but regardless, Orthodox people there have had little to say in their own destiny and this is the problem. If Ukraine were new to Christianity or if Orthodoxy were a minority there, there might be something to say for a church dependent on another older ecclesial body, but there are many ironies in the Ukrainian church scene that just do not add up or qualify as legitimate. To me, there seems to be no sense in bowing to the Moscow Patriarch, if one already has a church to call one's own and it is one that embodies the religious and cultural sentiments of the people.

If it is left up to Moscow to decide, there will never be an independent Ukrainian church, either Orthodox or Catholic and we all know it. The numbers in regard to MP parishes in Ukraine is deceiving and has to be understood in light of the situation people are in. Many already consider themselves Ukrainian Orthodox and actively attend UOC-KP or UAOC parishes. Others go to the church that is convenient for them. Still others, are ethnic Russians who should want to go to a Russian church. Isn't it odd that a major difference between KP parishes and MP parishes in Ukraine is the use of the vernacular Ukrainian. Most MP churches still use Church Slavonic while the KP and UAOC have transferred the services to the language of the people it serves. Just one interesting point of difference.

We all know the reason why the MP will not give up Ukraine voluntarily. It is because of its size and the number of Orthodox people - nothing more, nothing less. History will tell the end of the story and yes, a self-governing UOC will one day be accepted by so-called "world Orthodoxy" (a relatively new term) but in the meantime, people will have to settle for things the way they are. It is not at all a question of what one thinks of Patriarch Filaret or any other potential patriarch, but rather the principle of an indigenous church in Ukraine. Filaret happens to be the one who took the initiative to do it and people have followed this lead. Is he perfect? Absolutely not. Did he have a jaded past in Soviet times? Definitely. But, firstly, was he the only one like that? No way. Secondly, is he entitled to a change of opinion regarding the Ukrainian Church? Just as much as you or I, despite what some may consider to be a self-serving choice. It is working now to realize a free church for Ukraine.

For centuries, Ukraine struggled to be a free nation, as its self-awareness increased and people felt the need to express themselves in their uniquely Ukrainian ethos. Moreover, Kyiv, the center of modern day Ukraine was the original place where Christianity became the accepted faith of Rus'. We all know that Russia and Ukraine are not synonyms and that authentic differences have developed between the two cultural expressions. Ukrainian people have a deep sense of pride in their identity, in many ways due to the great sufferings that they have had to endure to maintain it. Quite simply, now that there is an independent Ukraine, the church is the last bastion of Russian imperialism that is allowed to continue. We see this phenomenon not only in Ukraine but in other nations that have declared their independence from the mighty Russians. In each instance, Moscow still refuses to recognize the right to autocephaly of these local churches and this has caused difficulties between itself and Istanbul. But, Ukraine is surely the most valuable piece of "property" that Moscow stands to loose. Isn't this similar to their concerns over the re-birth of the Greek Catholic Church? Doesn't it sound familiar?

So what can be done? Exactly what has taken place - people freely declaring their right to govern themselves and doing it. Waiting for an "official word" from Moscow or Constantinople will be a long and unproductive period. No one should have to wait for something that is already rightfully theirs. If so, the United States would never declared its independence from Great Britain and many other countries, the same way, would not exist today. Change takes courage and action, not complacency or blind obedience to powers that do not have the best of the people in mind. Sorry to say it so bluntly but I feel it is the truth.

**It is also important to remember that an autocephalous Ukrainian Church is not a new idea. There were many attempts at this over the years and in 1921, we have the "re-birth" (vidrodzhennya) of the UAOC at the sobor which elected Metropolitan Wasyl Lipkivskyj, considered a saint by many Ukrainians because of the suffering and death he endured for being faithful to the Ukrainian Church. Again, it is not a question over how Metropolitan Lipkivskyj was consecrated, but the fact that he was elected and led the church during a very exciting but also most difficult time. Ukraine was only free at this stage for a very brief period and was quickly overtaken by the Russian communists, who immediately outlawed the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church and imprisoned and executed its clergy and hierarchy. Anyone who wanted to live had to submit to the Moscow Patriarchate. Does this sound familiar? Didn't this same thing happen to the Greek Catholic Church after WW II? There seems to be a common game plan here and I just pray it is never repeated again.

Then there was the second phase of the development of the autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UAOC), the one during the brief period of the Second World War, when Ukraine was free from communist control (albeit it at the hands of the Nazis) and the UAOC was allowed to exist again. This time, there was a "canonical" hierarchy consecrated, through the help of the Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church, that had received its autocephaly from the Patriarch of Constantinople. In fact, Patriarch Gregorios VII, in 1924, issued a Tomos which re-established the Kyivan Metropolia (Ukrainian Church) as a self-governing church, an histocial event that is little known outside of the Ukrainian Church and for obvious reasons is not freely admitted to by Moscow or Istanbul, but it is nevertheless, the truth. With the tomos, the Patriarch placed the responsibility of establishing a new hierarchy for the UAOC in the hands of Metropolitan Dionisj Valydynskyj, primate of the Polish Church. This took place in Kyiv in 1942, and is the root of the apostolic succession of the Ukrainian Orthodox hierarchy to this day. Metropolitan Valydynskyj sent his representatives to Kyiv to perform the consecrations. Archbishop Polykarp Sikorskyj consecrated Bishop Nikanor Abrymovych and Bishop Ihor Huba, from whom all of the other 1942 bishops were consecrated.

Among those consecrated in this May 1942 event were bishops Mystyslaw Skrypkyk, Hennadij Skrypkevych, Hryhorij Ohijchuk and others, who ministered in the United States for many years. There was never a question as to the validity of these bishops' succession. As we know, Mystyslaw eventually was elected Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus' Ukraine, in the 1990 sobor that once again gave birth to an active autocephalous church in Ukraine itself. This can be called the "third generation" of the UAOC, again rising out of the catacombs once freedom came to Ukraine. From this descended today's situation, with the existence of the UAOC and the UOC-KP. The latter came to be after the death of Patriarchs Mystyslaw and Volodymyr, when, for reasons of disagreement, Filaret established the KP as separate from the UAOC. This is a long and complicated story, for another time but much can be learned about it on the site previously mentioned: www.risu.org [risu.org]

There is much talk of when a Ukrainian patriarchate or at least an autocephalous Ukrainian church will be recognized by "world Orthodoxy." What many do not realize is that a large percentage of Ukrainians do not care if or when this might take place. This is true both in Ukraine and in the Diaspora. From the many conversations I have had on this topic, it appears that those who support a self-governing Ukrainian Orthodox church are satisfied that they already have this and any approval from those on the outside looking in is unnecessary and after the fact. If it happens, that would be nice, but to wait around for others to decide their own fate - this is something that the large majority of Ukrainian Orthodox will not and do not want to do, nor should they. Do they possess authentic apostolic succession? Since 1942, this is unquestioned. Do they have a "valid" Eucharist? Definitely yes in the eyes of those who see more in being church than the legalistic red tape in which so much of church politics is wrapped. There is no "magic formula" that can make one all of a sudden legitimate, but it is the Grace of God, alive in believers, and passed down in the community of faith, that effects the sacraments and especially the Eucharist. Unfortunately, we often reduce the church to magic when we look for some type of approval from higher ups that pompously hold their authority over others as bait to get them to relent to their whims. If we depended on this, neither the Greek Catholic Churches or the UAOC or UOC-KP would be in existence today, as "ukrainiancatholic rightfully mentions.

The Ukrainian Orthodox patriarchate exists for those who wish to belong to it. It is a free choice (at least so far) that self-determined Ukrainians have a right to make. As has been said so many times, here and elsewhere, most local churches that have proclaimed their autocephaly eventually were accepted by others, merely by the fact that they exist, remain strong and grow. In time, it will become second nature and after the fact and all of the controversy over "canonical" and "uncanonical" will simply fade into history. After all, when we pass from this life and enter heaven's gates, I don't think that Our Lord or St. Peter or whoever will ask us if the church we attended was canonical or not. There are other criterion on which we will be judged and we all know what it is. The church itself reminds us of this on the Sunday of Meatfare. So when will we all stop worrying about politics and canonichky ili nicanonichky and get on with our business of being church. I think this is what members of the UOC-KP and the UAOC have already done and we would be wise to follow their example. Although my opinions may not agree with some "hyper-Orthodox" who see truth and "validity" only in a narrow view of Christianity, I hope and pray that they are faithful to the Gospels and the way Our Lord would have us represent his church. God help all of us and may he bless the free Ukrainian Orthodox Church with prosperity and a fervent zeal to spread the Good News.

Fr. Joe

[ 03-15-2002: Message edited by: Joe ]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Ukranian Catholic.

You obviously do not understand Orthodox Church History. The Autocephalic (read that independent National) Church often comes after years of self-declared autonomy --- see the Church of Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, etc---from its Mother Church. By Orthodox Tradition/Canons the final granting of full autocephalic status is granted by the Ecumenical Patriarch, at present.

Many belief as Metropolitan Philip does, he has said about American Autocephalic Status , "It will have to be taken" because he doubts that it will be given by the Mother Churches. The members of these Churches see themselves as canonical and other than not being "In communion" for a period of time with all (they may actually maintain communion with some autocephalic churches that recognize them), their validly ordained hierarchs, apostolic succession, and valid sacraments continue for the members of the declared National Autocephalic Church just as they did before their declaration of independence from the Mother church ( Constantinople, Antioch, Russia, etc). They remain irregular only in the recognition of their claim by all Orthodox Communuions. As the issues are resolved or the other Autocephalic churches accept the de facto independence of the National Church, the hierarchs go into communion with each other.

A problem that Roman Catholics frequently have understanding Orthodoxy is the issue of the various Churches of Orthodoxy going in and out of communion with one another. To them this is a sign of the disunity of the Orthodox Church. Yet in itself this is one of tools used by the Orthodox Churches to mainatin faithfullness to Orthodox Teachings within the Church. Orthodox Hierarchs (Patriarchs and Bishops) keep dyptichs listing the hierarchs that they are "In Communion" with. When a hierarch sees a teaching, action , etc that he believes is a violation of Orthodoxy, he has several steps he will do before stopping communion with the offending bishop:

1) he and his synod will write a letter to the offending Bishop explaining what he sees wrong and asking that the Bishop return to correct Orthodox teaching, action, ect that he sees being violated. The other bishop either responds by opening dialog, defending his stand, correcting the erroneous interpretation of his actions, or does nothing.

2) If the issue remains unresolved, the Bishop may seek mediation with other bishops or a patriarch. In this case dialog is opened and at limes a local council is done to determine the resolution of the situation.

3) If the issue remains unresolved, the bishop notifies the offending bishop that he is removing the offending bishop's name from his dyptich---in other words "I am no longer in communion with you. I will no longer commemorate you as an Orthodox Bishop during the Divine Liturgy". This is a VERY serious step and in the Orthodox Church this has resulted in most cases being resolved within the year.

[An example of this resulting in a positive change would be the situation recently when the Patriarch of Moscow took the Patriarch of Constantinople's name off his Dyptichs over the MPs belief that the EP had violated his administrative territory in relationship to Estonia. The result they opened more dialog and re-entered communion.]

[An example of this being non-productive is the Soorowful Epistle of ROCOR calling the SCOBA to repentence for the sin of Ecumenism. The SCOBA bishops did not respond to it and as a result ROCOR is not in communion with any of the SCOBA jurisdictions in the US and is in communion with only 2 Patriarchates --Jerusalem and Serbia at present. It is interesting to note that even so Orthodoxy through out the world would still call ROCOR an Orthodox Church with valid sacraments and apostolic succession].

The fact is that counciliar unity structure of the Orthodox Church is very different from the highly rigid structure of those churches in communion with His Holiness the Patriarch of Rome, the Pope---this makes it difficult for most laity and indeed some clergy to understand and compare the Orthodox Churches with the Catholic Churches. When the Great Schism initially occurred it was this removal of names from the dyptich that signaled the willingness of the East to dialog about the issues. This was not how it was done in the West and as a result the response did not come from Rome that was expected. The East and West went out of Communion. It is only by dialog and unity on issues that the two communions will once again re-enter communion. For that is what Communion means in unity with one another.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

[ 03-15-2002: Message edited by: Thomas ]

Thomas: A well stated explanation of the conciliar model of the church used in Orthodoxy. God bless you.

Fr. Joe

Fr. Joe!
Bravo! Great post. You hit many great points. Thomas, you are partly right when you say that I don't understand Orthodox Church history. This is something I am trying and need to remedy. The Orthodox Church history I do know pretty well is that of the UAOC born in 1921. I know it because a close member in my family was one of the bishops killed. Yes their apostolic succession isn't all there but they had nothing but a good intent. Just look at how much it flourished, not to mention how much it suffered.

Regardless about how much I know about church history, liturgics, or theology.... all I want is ONE Patriarch of Kyiv and all Rus'- Ukraine and of Ukrainian Christians of the world. To be finally united as one church where we can worship and celebrate as one church will be one great day for Ukraine and Ukrainians, and for all most of Orthodoxy. Why for most of Orthodoxy? Because the Kyivan Chruch is a church of Holy Martyrs. The Kyivan Church is a Holy church. The Kyivan Chruch is an apostolic church and I hope and pray that this unity comes in my lifetime and I get to participate in it.

"As the history of our Christian church in Eastern Europe clearly shows, a Kyivan patriarchate would save our ecclesiastical unity within the Universal Chruch and it would become the saviour of our Ukrainian church and state."

"Do not be ashamed of our heritage; value our spiritual legacy!.... May our spiritual heritage enter your souls and enflame your hearts so that you may preserve and cultivate it! Through this heritage may you be sanctified by the grace and the gift of the Holy Spirit."

-Testament of His Beatitude
+Patriach Joseph I

Well, this is my little rant on this issue. I hope my Ukrainian nationalism didn't some how appear on this post I just needed to let out some of my hot California air out.

-ukrainiancatholic

[ 03-15-2002: Message edited by: ukrainiancatholic ]

Thomas, or anyone:
A clarification, please. It was stated that
ROCOR is not in communion with any of the SCOBA jurisdictions in the US and is in communion with only two Patriarchates --Jerusalem and Serbia at present.
Does this not mean Jerusalem and Serbia - in practicing communion with both ROCOR and the other canonical patriarchates - is practicing the type of "double communion" that was denied the Melkites by both Rome and the Orthodox Patriarchates on the basis that double communing is an ecclesiological no-no?
Thank you for a response.


[ 03-15-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

[ 03-15-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Durak,
No, it does not. What it means is that the ROCOR Bishops do not commemorate the SCOBA Bishops/Patriarchs and thus will not take communion in the churches that they are not in communion with---the reason--- there is a lack of unity of belief. In ROCOR's case, it is they who have gone out of communion with SCOBA not vice versa (i.e. SCOBA priests will commune ROCOR communicants---ROCOR Priests may not commune SCOBA comunicants).

ROCOR is currently in communion with The Serbian Patriachate and the Jerusalem Patriarchate for historical and practical reasons. Serbia provided them with shelter in their time of need in the years between 1920 - 1930's, early in their history of the Church. Today, they see Serbia as under attack by ecumenists, Croation Roman catholics, Albanian Moslems, the U.S., EEC, and the UN and thus provide prayerful support in Serbia's time of need. In order to maintain the Holy Sites that they occupy in Jerusalem and Palestine, they have entered into agreements with the Jerusalem Patriarchate, based upon centuries old tradition, Middle Eastern Law and practice, that also require them to remain in communion with the Jerusalem Patriarchate in order to occupy Orthodox Christian Holy Sites---the Patriarchate is the guardian of all Orthodox Holy Sites.

Again Not being in Communion is a complicated issue pertaining to unresolved issues that ROCOR Hierarchs have with the SCOBA Bishops in the US and the Patriarchs of the SCOBA Mother Churches (Moscow, Constantinople, and Antioch).

On another note, one can see how being out of communion with "World Orthodoxy" may cause problems of isolation and at times lead to a conservatism that results in Schism. It is sad also to note that recently ROCOR was divided by schism when Metropolitan Vitaly came out of Retirement to establish another Church (Russdian Orthodox Church in Exile) due to his belief that ROCOR has become to liberal and is about to unite, after 80+ years of seperation, with the Moscow Patriarchate, Russian Orthodox Church.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

[ 03-15-2002: Message edited by: Thomas ]