www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News NAME FOR UKRAINAIN CHURCH

Hello all you Ukies!

I am confused (don't say it, I will: SO WHAT ELSE IS NEW!?!)

I had thought that Saint Andrew was associated with Constantinople, or am I mistaken here? Or maybe it doesn't matter.

Wasn't there some connection of Kyiv with Saint Clement of Rome?

Lastly, is there firm irrefutable evidence that a sitting Patriarch (or Metropolitan) of Kyiv actually removed himself and his office to Moscow or vicinity during the Tatar invasion, leaving a suffragen behind?

And is there a record of a Sobor or Synod convened to name his successor? Or is all this hidden in the mists of time?

Michael
sinner and egg-head

Dear Michael,

Actually, deuterocanonical works, such as the history of Andrew that describes his martyrdom, name him as "Apostle of Scythia" in the area that is today Ukraine.

The tradition that he evangelized that area is strong and there are Scythian Martyrs in the calendar who worked with him such as Sts. Inna, Pinna and Rimma, and host of other Scythian saints. By tradition as well Andrew planted a Cross among the hills of what would become the city of Kyiv and predicted its coming into being as a great centre of Christianity.

The Cathedral of St Andrew in Kyiv displays an ancient wooden Cross said to be the Cross Andrew placed there . . .

The slanted foot-rest of the Slavic Orthodox Cross, while signifying the victory of Grace over sin, also signifies the "X" Cross of St Andrew.

By tradition, St Andrew also evangelized in the area of Byzantium and the Patriarch of Constantinople is said to be descended from the first bishop consecrated by St Andrew, St Stachys who was Andrew's assistant. This is entirely possible since the Apostles travelled widely, establishing Churches everywhere they went.

The Kyivan Church also claims another Apostolic Founder, Pope St Clement I, who knew both Sts. Peter and Paul, was the writer of Paul's Letter to the Hebrews, wrote the Epistle of Clement himself on the authority of the Bishop of Rome which he was, wrote the Apostolic Constitutions and also the Clementine Liturgy which was once celebrated throughout the entire Church of Christ, East and West.

He was sentenced to exile in Crimea at Kherson where he was eventually martyred by having an anchor tied around his neck.

The Peninsula of St Clement was so named this year for the anniversary of his martyrdom and pebbles from underneath the waves near there are glued to small icons of him . . .

For years after his death, the waves of the Black Sea parted in FEbruary, exposing an old Greek church where his relics were kept, allowing people to go down and liturgically celebrate his feast!

Cyril and Methodius brought some of these relics to Rome where they are enshrined in San Clemente.

St Volodymyr brought other Clementine relics to Kyiv, declared him the Patron of his empire, named his Royal Chapel for him and then his son, St Yaroslav the Wise, had an icon of St Clement written on the walls of his imperial cathedral, St Sophia's.

When the Ukrainian Orthodox Church declared its autonomy from Byzantium in the twelfth century, the new Metropolitan, Saint Clement Smolyatych, took St Clement's name and was himself consecrated Metropolitan using the relics of St Clement I.

The Metropolitan of Kyiv administered his jurisdiction for almost 500 years from the Baptism of Kyivan Rus'. It was St Peter Akerovych, Metropoan of Kyiv who moved his seat northwards to Vladimir on the Kliazma to escape the attacks of the Horde. ST Macarius, Met. of Kyiv was earlier martyred at the Altar during the Divine Liturgy by the Tatars . . .

St Alexius, Met. of Kyiv followed suit, until the later Metropolitans moved to a secure town called "Moscow" but still clung to their title "Metropolitan of Kyiv and all Rus'."

Alex

Im curious as to what problems are breaking out between the RC and GC Churches in Ukraine?

The former has a web site for their Church www.rkc.lviv.ua/ [rkc.lviv.ua]

They appear to be mostly Polish ethnics and not Ukrainian nationals.


Robert.

Dear David,
You are right. We are one church, but what the Pope of Rome and a couple of others are trying to do is to unite the other one church and create THE ONE CHURCH, and in my point of view Ukraine may be the starting ground for such. Don't you think?
Lauro

No I don't think so.

As far as I have seen the only ones who think so happen to be Ukrainian to begin with.

I am not Ukrainian. If I wanted to be part of the Ukrainian Church I would just go there.

I think I better leave it at that.

And if, as you say, "but what the Pope of Rome and a couple of others are trying to do is to unite the other one church and create THE ONE CHURCH", is true then why not unite us under himself and make us all Latins?

This is why I do not believe that you are right. I do not think the Pope or anyone else is trying to unite Churchs, in the way you are suggesting, to form the One Church, which already exisits though our communion with each other and Rome.


In Christ,
David

Dear David,
Nobody's begging or demanding you to be part of the Ukrainian Church, but as you said, if you want to be part of it...just go there. The doors are open.
I don't think the Pope of Rome wants us to be Latins. I would never become one anyway.
One of the ideas that I agree with within the Ukrainian church is to comemorate both the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Now that's a good idea. Don't you think?
Lauro

Dear Lauro,

Fr. Serge Keleher, a very Eastern Catholic priest who used to live in Toronto before later moving to Ireland, used to do just what you suggest, commemorate BOTH the Patriarchs of Elder Rome and New Rome on the Feast of St Andrew.

I think we should commemorate both, together with the Kyivan Patriarch, at the liturgical diptychs.

(And I think we should stop commemorating the Pope a total of four times during our Liturgy too - the Roman Catholics are laughing at us for heavens' sakes . . .).

Fr. Keleher made it a practice in his Eastern Catholic Chapel of St Seraphim of Sarov to NEVER commemorate the Pope during the Ektenias.

Our bishop, however, made him commemorate the Pope twice at a minimum, at the Great Entrance and then immediately following the Canon - he said that the Synod of Zamoisk mandated that (?).

But Fr. Serge always maintained that only the Major Archbishop/Patriarch need commemorate the Pope.

He is right about that - even in St Josaphat's time, a priest or parish expressed their union with Rome NOT by commemorating the Pope in their liturgies, but by commemorating the Eastern Catholic Metropolitan. Only that Metropolitan commemorated the Pope in his Pontifical Liturgies.

Alex

Dear Lauro:

Just to add, what you suggest is in line with what Fr. Dr. Andrij Chirovsky has been suggesting for a while - a united Ukrainian church that enters into communion with both Rome and Constantinople, but governs itself from within.

This, of course, raises many issues - not the least of which is whether Rome or Constantinople would recognize such a communion - but what a triumph that would be for our church.

Yours,

kl

Dear Kliros,

Actually, if Rome and Constantinople are inimical to a Kyivan Patriarchate, and they currently are, evidence to the contrary being nonexistent, what would communion with both prove? That we are fully capable of affirming pious platitudes - something everyone already knows?

Neither Elder Rome nor New Rome would recognize a "Ukrainian Patriarchate" united or otherwise (and that is a really big IF if Ukie Orthodox wouldn't see "communion with Rome and Constantinople" here as a form of "uniatism by the backdoor").

And since neither Rome nor Constantinople are in communion with each other fully - doesn't this make us a laughing stock, yet again?

The problem with our theologians is that they can sometimes be a too idealistic, and totally oblivious to the real ecclesiastical politics that does play a crucial role in church relations in Eastern Europe.

That is why I've always thought the Ottawa Seminary have course in the behavioural sciences to fill in that "gap."

When they do decide to offer these, can you let me know?

Alex

Lauro,
I believe that your first post was promoting the idea that all slavic churches be united under the leadership of the Ukrainian church, isn't that what this comment meant?

I would see nothing wrong with the Ukrainian church comemorating both the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople, as long as they are truly in communion with both. Which as of today they are not.

I think this falls back to the Zogby Initiative, which was answered negativly by both the Antiochian Orthodox and Rome.

So I do not agree with you that this is something that the Pope is working for, at least not in the way your present it.


In Christ,
David

Dear David:

I do not pretend to speak for Lauro, but I think the point to be made here is that, generally speaking, "unity" has always been seen as "YOU come join US" as opposed to "let's find a middle ground somewhere."

While there is plenty of blame to go around, Rome, from where many of us sit, has probably been the biggest culprit in this regard. (Go ahead - take your shots.)

Specifically, Rome's position has always been that "unity" and "communion" with Rome requires buying into the Vatican's idea of church governance lock, stock and barrel.

Well, guess what? It ain't gonna happen. Our big-O Orthodox brothers and sisters will NEVER buy into, for example, Vatican I. (Frankly, I don't think they should - but that's another discussion.)

So, you are left with a choice - (1) a fractured church for ages unto ages; or (2) going with John Paul II's suggestion that the role of the Pope of Rome might need to be re-defined somewhat. Personally, I like the second.

Yours,

kl

Yes, I agree with you here. This goes with those of you who think that the Byzantine Catholic Church (what some of you call the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church) should join under the Ukrainian Patriarchate (if such a thing exisits).

No shots to take, except for the one taken above. I agree with you here, to a point.

Ah, but aren't the Orthodox doing the same, with those they call uncannoical? With the Zogby Initiative, where they told the Melkites that because they are in communion with Rome, they can not be in communion with the Orthodox?

It goes both ways.

Yes it is another discussion, but one I think we may agree on more than you think.

I too like the second, but where are the Orthodox in this? Have they even responded to the suggestion?

Again, it goes both ways and trying to paint Rome as being the only one at fault is wrong.

As they say, it takes two to tango.


In Christ,
David

Dear David,

Why isn't His Beatitude Lubomyr Husar a Patriarch, in your view?

Alex

I guess, from your point of view (which would be mine if I was you), is that he is one.

But..... I am not you..... :p

Just becuase a person proclaims themself something or a Synod of Bishops proclaims something, doesn't make it so for those of use outside of said jurisdiction.

Until he is recognized as such by Rome, or even my Church.... I will keep to the idea that he may be one, or may not be one.


In Christ,
David

Dear David:

It's nice to see that we agree more than we disagree here.

Still, please don't lump me in with those that think the Byzanitne Catholic Church (the so-called "Ruthenians") should "join" the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church. I have never advocated this position.

Your point about Rome having to "recognize" a Patriarch, however, is exactly what is scary to the Orthodox churches. To take an extreme (and admittedly unrealistic) example, what if, after communion is re-established, the Pope decides that the Patriarch of Constantinople is no longer worthy of that title?

Put another way, the power to grant implies the power to rescind.

Yours,

kl