www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News New Book on 20th Century Martyrs

Dear Hritzko,

First of all, thank you for the history lesson. I'm sure there are posters here who will learn much from it they didn't know before.

Secondly, I condemn no one and not the UGCC as a whole - I did say that St Andrew Sheptytsky came out in defence of Orthodoxy in Volyn and he did so as the UGCC head.

The fact is that, apart from him, UGCC opposition and protest against the church-burning could have been stronger, especially in Galicia but it wasn't.

If there are reasons why it wasn't, then I suggest they are largely unworthy ones and this topic has been discussed in years past, even on the pages of "Visnyk" from Sts Volodymyr and Olha parish in Chicago. I'm not the first UGCCer to say this and I won't be the last.

If you're argument in this respect is that the Ukies were afraid of retaliation, then how much more does it apply to the ROC when the Bolsheviks came into western Ukraine? Are you trying to have it both ways here?

You say it is not possible to fairly judge the matter, and then you go on to do precisely that.

I think I'm in a better position than you to speak on this subject as I have relatives who were and are priests of the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate - one of them having a doctorate in Orthodox theology. And they are all Ukrainian and express their love for their people in their own way (certainly, they do not approximate the patriotism of the Ukrainians in North America - no way! ).

That there were "agents" of Russian imperialism among the clergy is a given.

Filaret Denisenko's hands aren't clean on the matter, but who can say how dirty they really are?

Even Ukrainian Catholic priests have been, historically, willing dupes of Russophilism in their own church.

Andrew Sheptytsky truly did do great things on all our behalf. Somehow I think he would have been canonized sooner if he were Orthodox and not a Greek-Catholic.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

Alex

Good afternoon.

I have not read the book from cover to cover (it is over 500 pages in length), but I have read enough of it to say that, IMHO, there is no evidence of the Orthodox having the blood of innocent Greek Catholics on their hands. The Communists were the villains, but the ROC did cooperate in the takeover of the UGCC. Borys Gudziak contributed an excellent study to this work (which is, in fact, the acts of a conference held at the Vatican from 22 to 24 October 1998). He gives several reasons why the UGCC was persecuted to severely compared to others, among them "... the vital links of the UGCC with a greater non-Soviet ecclesiastical world and especially with the Holy See would provide a maddening array of opportunities to escape total control." (p.39). He also points out that Patriarch Aleksei of the ROC met with Stalin and Molotov the day before the arrest of Metropolitan Slipyi.

Peace,
Charles

Thank you all for your responses. It was/is a lamentable time indeed.

Dear Charles,

The takeover of the UGCC by the ROC was actually seen as a good thing by Ukrainian Orthodox in North America, despite the complicity of the Soviets in the matter (I. Ohienko, "Ukrainian Patrology" as an example, where he praises Fr. Gabriel Kostelnyk as a martyr, killed by "a fanatical Greek-Catholic").

To this day, the ROC has not apologised for its involvement in this sad affair.

And neither has Rome ever demanded that the ROC ever acknowledge its involvement or make apology to the UGCC or the Catholic Church as a whole as a pre-condition for the resumption of talks and the like.

Another sad episode in all this is that when it comes to relations between Rome and Moscow, Rome's attitude is "business as usual."

This is a strange attitude for Rome to take, given the number of apologies it has itself felt obliged to make for historic injustices.

Alex

Those years were very dark indeed. Many brave people fell. People who really had faith, courage and love. Sometimes I ask myself: What would I have done? All I can say is that I need to grow.
Lauro

Dear Alex,

There were many Ukrainian organizations in Galicia which condemned the brutatality of the Poles in the interwar period. In addition to the UGCC, the OUN (Orhanizatzija Ukrajinskyh Natzionalistiv) or Ukrainian Nationalist Organization spoke up about this brutality on many occassions and in fact executed acts of revenge against the Poles for many of their misdeads (see how things get kinda of snowball ).

For that matter, there were protests in almost every community where Ukrainians lived in North America throughout the 1930's because of what the Poles were doing. There were protests by the Ukes all the time and in many cases the stories were reported in the main stream press.

The Galician Ukrainians were spread thin trying to defend the rights of the Rusyn minority.

First of all, the Galicians Ukrainians were having the same problems with the Poles, albeit on a smaller scale because the Greek Catholics were the majority and the Orthodox the minority. The Russophilic element (as you correctly mention) within the UGCC was not helping matters.

Further, many of the Galician Ukrainians were trying in all manner to help the largest group of Ukrainians who were already part of the U.S.S.R. and who were being starved, murdered, deported, tortured, and otherwise mistreated by THE MILLIONS by the Russian communists. Metropolitan Andrej was desperate to wake the world up to the suffering of the millions of Ukrainians who were being killed one way or the other. How many Greek Catholic Churches were there in the interwar Soviet Ukraine (mostly 'Greater Ukraine') ? The number must have been close to zero, but that did not stop our Metropolitan Andrej from expending large amounts of his time and money on trying to help the Orthodox (ROC included) in dire circumstances. Because of his efforts, during the artificial famine of 1932 - 1933, the International Red Cross brought the plight of the suffering Orthodox to the forefront of world politics. The Russian commies of course dinied all of their crimes against the people and the churches.

West of the Carpathians, the Carpatho-Rusyns were also desperate for some support for their Greek Catholic church and culture which was being systematically and forcefully Slovakized by the Slovak majority - again, contrary to the Treaty of Versaille which had promised the Carpatho-Rusyns autonomy within the Czechoslovak Republic. The Carpatho-Rusyns were also looking to the Galician Rusyns (Ukrainians) for assistance in preserving their church and millennium old culture.

The Galician Ukrainians including the UGCC and OUN were stressed themselves and were trying to help their brothers and sisters in other Rusyn (Ukrainian) lands in any way they could. This was a very difficult period for Ukrainians. If they could have done more, I'm sure they would have for the Orthodox Christians in Volyn.

You are most certainly more qualified than I am on most religious matters. My father was an alter boy (Galicia) as was I (Quebec). My grandmother use to work as housemaid for a UGCC priest in Galicia. So your ROC uncle with the PhD wins .

Hritzko

Dear Hritziu,

Glad that you see it my way!

And, yes, those organizations were wonderful . . .

God bless,

Alex

I think that the challenge to those condemning stalinist coerced incorporation of the unia into the MP is to maintain the intellectual honesty and say that the original imposition of the unia was just as coerced and brutal and illegitimate. That does not absolve either side, but it does seem to deaden the sanctimoniousness of certain voices. I would be the first to say that the sergianist administration of the Church in Russia was a hateful godless adaptation of the older synodal structure of peter which was sinful in many of its actions. But would a uniate voice be as honest in its condemnation of a less than illustrious history of the unia(s)? Moreover, notions of Russian imperialism ad nauseam simply feed on themselves and deny the history of the regions in question prior to the fanciful creation of the ukrainian nationalist movement by Great Russian narodnik socialists who had no other purpose than promoting a social experiment to try and arrive at an "enlightened utopia". Could the voices of DRAGOMANOVS and KOSTAMAROVS be not also seen as Great Russian elitist paternalism? To ask such a question is to speak a "heresy" to some. And how is it intellectually admissable to dismiss the history of these regions for centuries which affirm a "Rusin or Russian identity" with such names of the regions in question as "Chervonaja Rus' (Galicia)", "Prikarpatskaja Rus'", "Prjashevskaja Rus'", "Litovskaja Rus'" and the BYZANTINE and accepted name of the area of the Steppes of Pontus PRIOR TO THE PEREJASLAVL' PACT as "Malaja Rus'" "Rosija Mikra" -- GREEK IN ORIGIN AND IN COMMON USE AMONGST THE PEOPLE IN QUESTION IN REFEREENCE TO THEMSELVES BEFORE THE DREADED "moskali" ever returned?! It is astounding that people forget that even Hrushevsky's opus was originally titled "A HISTORY OF RUS'". Lastly, the whole denisenko question is simply scandalous. If this person with his common law wife posing as a schema nun and children were a ugc hierarch, he would have been deposed long ago. That some would simply use him and his schism to promote divide et impera is scandalous. There is a more legitimate Ukrainian "autocephalous" body under the patronage of the ep which seems neglected by these voices for its numbers are not great and its presence is seen as a "foreign intrusion". That body, however, bears a bit more legitimacy. One must also remember that if sergianism did not survive in the new Ukrainian Republic that the denisenko moverment would have fizzled away a long time ago. So, to condemn sergianism in regard to the barbaric "reunion of the unia" while praising it for its "ukrainoznavstvo" in the person and organization loyal to mr. denisenko is simply to speak out of both sides of ones mouth and promote hypocrisy. Either sergianism is evil totally or it isn't. I contend it is.

Dear Balaban,

Yes you are correct, the sun is quickly setting on the Russian Empire.

You are again correct in stating that we are honest with history. There was a Rus with it's capital of Kyiv long before Moscow was on a map. The Muscovites as you correctly state usurped the term Rus in the 18th century to become the Rossiany with their capital of Moskva (Moskva). The original Kyivan Rusyny in order to distinguish themselves from the Moskali turned 'Rossiany' began to use the term 'Mala Rus' and soon after 'Ukraijina'. Those on the west side of the Carpathians never changed and are still called Rusyni.

You are correct that the era of the Union (late 16th century) and the Ruthenian / Ukrainian Cossaks attempt at self government was awe inspiring to many around the world. In fact, it was announced last week that France's most famous actor Gerald Depardieu will be staring in a new French version of the Holywood classic 'Taras Bulba'. This Ukrainian Cossak hero of course was a composite character of many Ukrainian cossack hetmans (leaders) and reflected the turbulant times of the Greek Catholic Union. Clearly the interest in the era of the Union of Brest is great, particularly in Europe where so many millions of Ukrainians have immigrated over the last dozen years.

To compare those times with the terror inflicted by the Russian Communists and their allies the ROC immediatelly after WW2 on the Greek Catholics is being intellectually dishonest on your part to say the least.

The Rusyns / Ukrainians of Ukraine-Rus have at long last re-established their nation, and are consolidating their Orthodox Church into one body.

The young Ukrainian Christians of today are more interested in hearing, preaching, and living the Gospel of Jesus, than discussing territorial jurisdiction.

You may even find it difficult to believe, that many young Christians just do not see anything wrong with a Patriarch being married. Some may even think it is beneficial because he will probably better understand the difficulties of married / familly life and will be able to preach the Gospel in a more 'appropriate manner'.

Ukraine is facing West and looks forward to developing it's church accordingly.

We pray that the Muscovites / Russians and their Orthodox Church are able to emerge from hundreds of years of brutal serfdom under their White Monarchy, and later from equal oppression from their new 'Red Czars'. There is much evolving ahead for Ukraine's neighboors to the north.

Hritzko

That simply is factually inaccurate. If one is to begin to speak of Rus' and its organization, one has to begin with the city of Novgorod from whence the Ruriks came. Moreover, to dismiss the tartar pogrom and depopulation of Kiev with accompanying mass migrations is poor history. Indeed, the picture that emerged was a mass exodus of the Kievan population to two centers, East (North) & West. Surely, you've heard of such names as St. Peter of Vohlynia and Kuzma Minin-Sukhoruk?! Now, the emerging successor states to Kievan Rus' were Litovskaja Rus' and, eventually Moskovskaja Rus', or as referred to in the north, Rus'. Never was Novgorod part of "your" vision or "your" country, but it was the second city of Kievan Rus', the city never conquered by the Mongols, and the city from whence the Muscovite throne was established by Prince Daniel the grandson of St. Alexander Nevsky, a Saint very much revered in the south. Whereas, in the West, all links to the Kievan past were obliterated at first by the Lithuanians, then finally by the poles. Now, going one step further, after the Treaty of Lublin, Litovskaja Rus' ceased to exist and what was left was recz pospolita and its "subjects" which were Poles, Lithuanians and kholops (serfs, chattel, the Rus'). In the north a strong kingdom was built. Now you mention the rather inglorious inception of the unia and the "glorious cossack" resistance to it. Perhaps, it has escaped you that the cossacks, among whom my forebearers were counted--we fought alongside Vygovsky, Sagaidachny and Khmelnitsky--sought to reestablish union of northern and southern Rus' to be under the "Orthodox Tsar'". Surely, you have not forgotten the immense influence Kievan scholars were having on Northern Rus' in this period, how they reformed the language based off the Middle Ukrainian model and how they either hellenophoned or latinophoned new titles, words. Surely, you must know that the word Rossija is their product, it being a hellenized form of Rus'. How can this be so? Prior to the union, the south was termed ecclesiastically "Rosija Mikra" and it was a term the south did apply to itself nationally. Now when one takes that root of "Ros" which is interchangeable it seems with "Rus" or even in some instances "Ras" and applies latin grammatical rules which were the hallmark of the Kievan scholars, one adds a medial of an additional "s" with a suffix of "-ia", meaning land of, fatherland, etc. It seems that the Kievan scholars in the 18TH century, then, came up with a word for all of reunited Rus' which means "the land of the Rus'", but, somehow, this is a stolen identity even though the territories in question were part of the patrimony of Rus' at least since the coming of Rurik?! What a thought! The question that is begged, succinctly, is where is there any mention of a "ukraine" as a national identity during this period and amongst which people and by which scholars. There were no Kostarmarovs and Dragomanovs to create a new civilization out of "noble savages" in deference to Rousseau and Voltaire at this time it seems. I believe in answering that question one will be educated as to the true contrivance.

Dear Balaban,

You are correct again, the sun is setting on the Russian Empire.

Soon a new Patriarch for Ukraine will be installed in Kyiv, the ancient craddle of Eastern slavic Christianity. The new Patriarch of 'Kyiv, Ukraine, and all of Rus will begin the re-evangilization of the Slaves without having any past history of cooperation with the communists. Only Patriarch Lubomyr Husar of the UGCC has clean hands (see the RISU post today about various Patriarchs involvment with communism) and the moral authority to taken on such a church position.

Ukraine's Christians look forward to a new era of apostolic church life free of Czars, Commissars, and other despot rulers.

Peace.

Hritzko

I would first suggest that the parties in question free themselves of the patronage of "former" bolshevik "apparatchiks" who now prop up and empower the various dissenting denominations and schisms. That sure seems like sergianism to me, and surely an alliance with the infamous nikodim could not have left all with "clean hands". That one would simply be blind to the fact that the current tension in the Ukraine is nothing more than a civil war between former party members and kgb agents leaves one wondering as to how objective an observer ones interlocutor is. Furthermore, if this "Ukrainian superpartriarchate" is to so evangelize the Slavs (not "slaves"!), one would hope that it would first reach the public institutions, the military, the government, the workplace, 40% of the population of the Ukriane which seems to be going unattended. Lastly, isn't it strange that the legacy of the Church in Kiev arises precisely from those "despots, tsars and hetmans", that the greatest achievements of the people in question were made under their rule and guidance in unity with the REST of Rus' and nothing since is either coherent or even approaches that grandeur?! And isn't it ironic, again, that "true descendants" of Rus' now repudiate her name and legacy for the social constructs of Great Russian narodnik paternalists who saw the people they "composed an ideology for" as nothing more than "ignorant savages" and that this ideology was later reimported from the headquarters of the Austrian secret police yet now is so "patriotically ukrainian"?! It is astounding that the "moskali" don't hate their preservation of the identity and legacy of RUS' and are actively working to reinvigorate while the "true descendants" seem to want proto-bolshevism with a rouseauian tinge instead? It definitely says alot about loyalty to Rus', her culture, her people, her Church.

Dear Balaban,

by the way it's Ukraine and not "Ukriane"

The Austrian secret police and the local YMCA are devising a plan to put the Czar back on the throne of Russia, Alaska, and all of Eastern Europe. From Central Europe to mid-continent North America.

The Cossaks of Volyn and Petrograd are forming new batallions to return mother Russia to her former glory. They shall meet the socialist nationalistic forces unloyal to Mother Russia and crush them like ants.

The people of Rus shall be glorious again. We shall never forget that we are one Russia - a mother of all Rus people headed by a monarchy of blue bloods.

We shall defend one Holy Russian Empire !

(Unless of course Sears has it's semi annual the 50% off lawn furniture sale, then the whole plan is off 'cause I'm going shopping).

Rise oh people of Rus to defend the Royals !

Rise of people of Rus to bring the Empire back to her former glory !

Let the spirits of our heros Nicholas II, Rasputin, Putin, and others, guide you to a new era.

Rise up ! rise up !

Mother Russia shall be victorious !

Peace.

Hritzko

Dear Friends,

The term "Rus'" was formerly an administrative name for the empire of St Volodymyr the Great.

The term "Ukraine" existed at the same time and referred to the people of what is now Ukraine - the term is one of national/ethnic identity and is referred to officially at least six times in the Chronicles, beginning with the Chronicle of Ipatiiv in 1169.

The northern tribes of what became Muscovy that were ruled by the sons of St Volodymyr adopted the term "Rus'" as part of their heritage from St Volodymyr - it referred to a river near Kyiv.

It was only with Peter I that the term "Rus'" was appropriated by the Muscovites and he ordered all Musovite ambassadors to use the term "Russian" from then on.

Peter was convinced of this by his Ukrainian advisers . . .

Today, the term "Rus'" is synonymous with Great Russian chauvinism and, sorry, it should NOT be used by Ukrainians as something entirely foreign (and historically oppressive) to them.

One could, ostensibly, use the term "Rus-Ukraine."

But "Rus'" by itself today means "Muscovy."

Let the Muscovites keep that term!

Alex

A bevy of blatant factual errors. One must remind certain esteemed personages of actual history and not a "foreign mythos". Firstly, there is even Persian evidence of a name "Ros" referring to the region in question and tribes providing retinues and tribute that dates back to the time of Darius. Secondly, Rus' as a unified country was put together by the RURIKS who set forth from NOVGOROD. Thirdly, the term "ukraine" when encountered in the Chronicles NEVER refers to a nation or nationality and was NEVER used as such until the 1840s when GREAT RUSSIAN NARODNIK SOCIALISTS found it a past time to engineer a social experiment on people they regarded as nothing more than "ignorant noble savages", taking their que from the writings of Voltaire & Rousseau & Proudhon. That was later rejected by the people and only found haven in the Austro-Hungarian empire and it was a totally new ideology which was used to DERUSSIFY the population. Fourthly, Moscow as a principality was established by Daniel, the grandson of St. Alexander Nevsky of Novgorod who held the title of Grand Prince of Kiev. In the Chronicles one will often read that many Grand Princes of Kiev were first Princes of Novgorod, which was considered the second city of Rus'. Novgorod never fell to foreign occupation and has remained a consistent, sovereign link to Rus' for over a millenium, a claim not one southwestern city of historical Rus' can claim. Novgorod understood itself as Rus', its princes were recognized as "Grand Princes of Kiev and all Rus'" and this title was later transferred to Moscow when Moscow came into ascendancy. One will find on all ecclesiastical and state documents from Moscow profuse useage of the term "RUS'" in regard to itself. It became the spiritual capitol of all of Rus' after St. Peter of Volhynia transferred the Metropolia from Kiev (the southwest) which cemented the ascendancy of Moscow as the center of free Rus'. No where, however, is there ever found a use of "Rus'-Ukraine" or "Ukraine" in regard to a nation or nationality. It simply is never used in those terms. The word properly means a "march", "borderland", "disputed territory" and is sometimes used by various cossacks, including those at Azov and even on the Don to refer to their territory as a territory, but not a country, a territory of Rus'. In Litovkaja Rus', these population were called and referred to themselves as RUSSKIJE. Afther the Union of Lublin, they were referred to as "kholops", ie serfs, chattel, and only called "Russkije" disparagingly. In Kiev, the scholars and church referred to themselves as MALAJA RUS', which is a term dating back to Litovkaja Rus' which Constantinople established to distinguish it from the northern see at Moscow, which bore the titular name of the See of Moscow and all of Rus'. The Greek again was "Rosija Mikra"--it means Little Russia. Furthermore, one reads in the Perejaslavl Pact and prior correspondences from the Zaporizhian Cossacks and the Kievans--among whom my ancestors were numbered--a plenitude of references to themselves as "malorosijanje" but not one referenced "ukraintsy". Now, a simple reading of any given history book will allow one to be able to apprehend FACTS which show that from the reign of Alexis I to Catherine the Great and beyond that all religious and academic institutions were reorganized/organized and headed by scholars from Kiev, the Rus' from the south. Moreover, the Church's hierarchy was dominated by them into the beginning of the nineteenth century. The linguistic reform beginning with Alexis I through peter was the work of these Kievan scholars who used the "Middle Ukrainian" of Kiev as the basis for an All-Russian literary language. They introduced numerous latinophone and grecophone elements which came to include the word "Russia", which when broken down per Latin grammar, WHICH IS THE HALLMARK OF THE KIEVAN SCHOOL, reads root "Rus'" + infix "s" (used to accomodate a suffix in Latin) + suffix "-ia" which means "land of, country of": "Russia" per the Kievans is their restatement of the name "Rus'", for it simply means "Land of Rus'". Now, that some who are supposedly the "true descendants of that country find it appropriate to distance themselves from that name, that heritage, that history, that culture, that Faith and mock it and put in its place the socialist utopian ideas of Great Russian elitists, Dragomanov & Kostamarov, who had no respect whatsoever for the population of Southern Rus', that their quack "ideology" was later used by the Austrian secret police to promote a new identity to derussify "the Russian populations of their empire" alludes to the most insincere of contrivances and most inconsistent of confusions. Why the very standard of "patriotism" on the part of this party is a foreign ideology of proto-bolshevism rooted in a complete lack of respect for the populations in question. One must remember that at the outset of this "experiment" the populations in question understood their patrimony to be that of Rus', that's why the names "Chervonaja Rus'", "Prikarpatskaja Rus'", "Prjashevskaja Rus'", "Malaja Rus'" were the accepted and understood proper appelations to these people and their national consciousness. This was borne out in WWI by the Galician population's welcoming of the Russian Orthodox church and wish to return to Orthodoxy as well as the prominent Galician and Carpatho-Russian involvement in the various White armies. Until the outset of WWII, the predominant ideology of the immigration of these peoples was either Hetmanism (the Galicians) which called for a restored monarchy and "Federation of All of Rus'" or "Russia-centered" Pan-Slavism (Carpatho-Russians). Even such bodies as the ugc and its organizations bore the national appelation "RUSSKY" into the 1950s. Similarly, the Ruthenian literary language, which is still championed by some Carpatho-Russians, is simply "Middle Ukrainian" and bears so much resemblance to Literary Russian that the kinship cannot be denied. It baffles the mind to see Russian russophobes simply ignore history and facts while creating a new and revolutionary identity with no real historical foundation. Marx called this "reification". The irony of this all is is that these "would be patriots of a quixotic cause" have had their identity defined for them by the much hated "moskali", "moskalskii soshalisty" no less! along with the leninist program of "stifling counter-revolution" in concert with the repressive efforts of the Austrian secret police and the later Pilsudski government. One is baffled at the adherence and acceptance of a foreign appelation to oneself and the utter rejection of the true and historical understanding of ones real identity. They seem to need to be defined by foreigners, led by foreign political schemes and base their hopes on fantasies and mythes the foreign composers of which knew were untrue at the outset. Utterly pathological. And on a lighter note, one marvels at the utterly disdainful hatred of Rus' by the "true Rus'" coupled with support for a corrupt post-bolshevik government peopled with former party "apparatchiks" and "kgb agents". The question begged is, succinctly, "how evil were the Russian bolsheviks if their progeny now ruling are praised for doing so and their corruption and utter ahistoricity is seen as 'progressive government' and definiton of ones national aspirations and identity"?! Scholars who monitor the area simply see a rivalry for loot between northern and southern "former bolsheviks" with "nationalities" simply serving as window dressing. "Yeltsinism" is all this is and rule by the oligarchs who are robbing the national wealth of all of Rus'.