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

I really have no idea why you are all so caught up in the idea of who is the correct "Third Rome". The whole arguement seems proposterous. If what you claim is true that Ukraine should have precedence amongst the Eastern Slavs, then equally Bulgaria can claim that leadership over the South Slavs, as well as the Romanians....though I do believe that they would not be so keen on that. From what I know and read, both Russians and Ukrainians seem caught up in a cycle to show that the other is wrong and that their view is exclusively the correct one.

As for the case of non-Pentarchical (is there such a word?)Patriarchs, I believe that canon law dictates that it is the mother Church which decides to give autonomy/autocephaloucy. In the case of Bulgaria, Constantinople recognised the independence of its eldest daughter in 927AD, as did Antioch with Georgia, and Constantonople with Cyprus.

Some argue that the "first amongsts equal" title could pass from Constantinople to another See; if this is true, then it is equally possible to argue that "Third Rome" could pass from one Church to another....

Anton

Just for the record, Georgia did indeed receive its autocephaly from Antioch. However, Canon VIII of the Council of Ephesus granted the right of the right of performing the ordinations of their own Bishops to the Church of Cyprus from the Church that previously performed that function...the Bishop of Antioch.

Both Cyprus and Georgia were part of the Antiochian Patriarchate, neither belonged to Constantinople. As was correctly noted, Bulgaria was their first (Patriarchate recognized by Constantinople in 927).

Christ Is Risen! Truly He Is Risen!

Thanks...well I guess mistakes always happen!

Dear Anton,

Actually, neither the Ukie Catholics or Orthodox want anything from Moscow or else deny its right to a patriarchate etc.

Moscow denies this to the Ukies.

And you are more than correct with respect to the "Mother Church" thing.

Moscow considers itself Kyiv's "Mother."

But Moscow is, in fact, simply an "ungrateful daughter."

This is the lie on which Moscow's claims of authority over Kyiv is based.

If Rome wishes to agree with Moscow on this, then Rome is also agreeing to this lie.

Should Rome affirm it formally, then the Ukrainian Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, have no other recourse but to unite in one Ukrainian Orthodox Church without worrying about canonicity too much.

It is better to be uncanonical than a party to a lie.

Alex

I always believed that a daughter church was created upon the appointment of a leader by the Mother Church; such was the case in Bulgaria, or at least, the crown held discussions with the Ecumenical Patriarch. Surely, if Moscow is the ungrateful daughter, that would imply that Kiev founded the See, whereas historically, the Metropolitan of the City was the one who moved to Moscow. I stand by my belief that nationalism - on both sides - is playing a major role.

Anton

Dear Anton,

The Metropolitan moved northwards in Kyiv's case for temporary protection against the Mongols, Tatars etc., but it was Moscow that forced it to change its name to "of Moscow."

When has nationalism/imperial chauvinism of varying kinds not been a factor in church relations in the last 1500 years?

But it isn't the only factor.

Kyiv does not insist that Moscow "give up" anything. The tradition of St Volodymyr/Vladimir can be shared by more than just one Church.

If Kyiv or other Churches formerly under Moscow wish to be free of it, why should Moscow assume an exclusivist position informed by the memory of a former imperial glory?

Moscow has always affirmed Kyiv's primacy as the most ancient See, even though the Moscow Patriarch has assumed its powers.

The Moscow Patriarch is still crowned by the Metropolitan of Kyiv - that is a fact of history Moscow simply cannot change.

Alex

I wish everyone would admit that the legacy of St Vladimir can be shared. I always remember a college porter who not only played a Ukrainianist exclusivist card, but also a Greek Catholic exclusivist one. I could never get my head round his theories!

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

Eventhough I'm Ukrainian Greek Catholic, do you see what a nice fellow I really am?

Ukies can be very bigoted and narrow. And I've met Russians who are by far more fair-minded.

My grandparents, I am proud to say, helped a number of Russian clerics and some aristocrats escape the bolsheviks.

My grandmother, a Greek Catholic Presbytera, always told me about how deeply cultured they all were.

And some of the greatest supporters of the UGCC in the underground were Russians.

St Vladimir belongs to all who share in his tradition.

As some tell me, he was an Old Believer . . .

Alex

...so was Apostol Andrei!

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

During my tour of Greece, I was told the Apostles were ALL Greeks!

When I asked the guide how he knew, he said, "Look at all the time they spent fishing . .."

After thinking about that one, I told him "but there is no record that they ever caught even a single fish by their own skill . . ."

So, Father, the Old Believers really do believe that the two-fingered Sign of the Cross comes down to us from the Apostles?

I'm not baiting you (no reference to the above), I just truly wish to know.

Alex

Some Alex, but not all.

Many don't look back beyond patristic sources such as Sts Meletii and Theodoret.

Part of the problem is the lack of applying historical criteria to the Church and recognising development. We need only look at the veneration of 'stary knigy' without any attempt at chronology.

Equally historical fact is often ignored. Svyashchenomuchnik Avvakum becomes a bishop figure unable to 'bless' successors because he is caged and unable to stretch out his hands (Pomortsy ideas rather than popvtsy, but they show the lack of concern for substantiated facts!).

Old Rite Orthodoxy has to face up to history and development, readdressing issues such as dietry taboos, avoidance rituals and clothing in Church, if it is not to become a quaint folk religion. This is not to say that I do not want to see a bearded man in a kaftan and a veiled woman in sarafan. However, I find it hard to accept them as prequisites for membership of the community.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Tell the truth, the history bug hit me (1st final exam tomorrow) so I decided to do some language research (don't know why...should be reading the Constitutions of Clarendon...).

The name Boris, widespread throughout the Christian world, is considered by many people to be Slavonic. This "etymology" interprets it as a short form of the name, well known to all Slavs, Borislav. The problem, however, is that given names like Stanislav, Vladislav, Miroslav, etc., formed after the same pattern, have no such short forms at all. To the Slavonic-speaking peoples these "variants" sound ridiculous, absurd and merely incredible.

The name Boris was registered for the first time in the case of the Bulgarian ruler Prince Boris I (852-889), who adopted Christianity in 864 and imposed it to his entire people. His name came to be known in Europe in relation to this particular act. Moreover, after his death in 907 he was proclaimed the first Bulgarian saint, and traces of his cult during this period can be found as far away as Ireland. However, Prince Boris was not a Slav. He came from a dynasty of a Proto-Bulgarian, that is, of Turk ethnic origin. And this is the particular reason why his name was of a Turkic origin, meaning, according to the different interpretations, "wolf", "short" or "bars". Among the Proto-Bulgarians it was known in its two forms - Boris and Bogoris.

It is interesting that in Bulgaria's medieval history the name Boris could be found very rarely (for example, Tzar Boris II, great-grandson of the saint, and Boris David, a Macedonian boyar of the 11th century). In time, it seemed to be retained only in cases when Saint Prince Boris was mentioned in religious services. The name was restored to a new life from the late 18th century on, and only after the birth of the infant, the future Tzar Boris III (1894-1943), an increasing number of people began to give this name to their children. On the Balkan Peninsula nowadays the people named Boris are most numerous in Bulgaria, the Republic of Macedonia and Eastern Serbia.

In fact, the name Boris owes its world-wide career to its adoption by the Russian Slavs. I don't know the exact time when this happened. It is known, however, that the cult of the Bulgarian saint reached the Russian lands not later than the early 11th century. As a matter of fact, this name was given to one of the sons of the Grand Duke Vladimir I (980-1015) during whose reign in 988-89 the conversion of the Kievan Russia to Christianity took place. In this conversion to Christianity both ordinary priests and prelates from Bulgaria played a significant part. As evidenced by Russian chronicles, this Boris and his brother Gleb were sons of Vladimir I born to him by a Bulgarian woman, of whom, however, there is no other evidence. In 1015 the sons of this Bulgarian woman, the princes Boris and Gleb, were killed by their stepbrother Svyatopolk, who usurped the throne. Within a short time Boris and Gleb were canonized and ever since they have been the native soldier-saints most revered among the Ukrainians, Russians and Byelorussians.

From the lands of Kievan Russ the name Boris went over to the neighbouring countries. An example of this is the case of the Hungarian prince Boris (1112-1155), son of the Magyar king from his marriage with Euphtimia, daughter of the Kievan prince Vladimir II Monomach. For a fairly long period of time men bearing the name Boris were found predominantly in the courts and among the nobility. But later the name became popular among all strata in the Russian Empire, and with the colonization of Caucasus, Siberia and the Far East and the subsequent emigration waves to other places all over the globe, it was gradually established in all Northern Asia and reached Western Europe, the two Americas and Australia. In the present day, one can meet a Boris even in Black Africa (and - again through Russian immigrants - in Israel).


This is, briefly, the story of the world trip of this ancient Proto-Bulgarian name - the name of the Bulgarian ruler and saint Prince Boris I. In this sense, the Russian president Boris Yeltsin and the German tennis-player Boris Becker are namesakes along the Old-Bulgarian line. Not to mention the fact that the 1st Bulgarian Ruler Khan Asparukh (c.681) was a direct descendent of Attila... As a matter of fact, this is not the only example when a word of Bulgarian origin makes a global career using a Russian carrier rocket. This is very much the case with names and words like "Vladimir", "tzar", etc. going right down to - no matter how incredible it may sound - Gorbachev's "glasnost".

Idiotic research/write-up mode over.

Anton

V. interesting Anton - good to read and know.

Fr Mark.

Danke Schone Vater! Just been reading and Alexander III was quite sneaky during the Becket crisis......

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

Could you explain about the vision an Old Believer had concerning the two-finger Sign of the Cross and to be faithful to it as coming from Christ?

Is this not related to one of the Canons of the Stoglav that actually does seem to imply that this form of the Sign is mandated by Christ Himself?

Alex