The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
CelestineV, arekeon27, Wenura Ravindu, Leeno, San Nicolas
5,846 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 58 guests, and 24 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,168
Posts414,969
Members5,846
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 788
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 788
Orthoman represents one Orthodox Christian's opinion, I'll give another. Given that the reality exists of a property dispute, some sort of arrangement like the UGCC Archbishop stated is certainly worthy of consideration.

Axios

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 425
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 425
Orthoman: Have a blessed Pascha. I guess I will also have to go to confession after this post.
"Ehda slavnii uchenyki..."

This subject and its responses are really getting on my nerves, especially because all of you have such differing views.
Firstly, St. Sophia was in communion with Rome, as Alex stated, unoficially until 1452 (or something like that) and then from 1596 to the early 1600s. The Orthodox Cathedral of the city was St. Michael of the Golden Domes (down the street).

Orthoman: unity is achieved between Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics (which really means when the Ukrainian Orthodox join the Unia)!
Pardon me, but it looks like it will be the other way around.

Maybe the Orthodox Bishop who oversees the Orthodox parishes in Italy should petition the Italian government to grant us permission to share St Peters
Sure, when THE Orthodox Bishop in Italy...etc. When all of the Orthodox are in communion with each other, let me know.
You should watch the use of this argument, especially with the new situation in Russia. If Catholics began to take this view, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York could tell Metropolitan Laurus, the Greek Orthodox Archbishop, the Bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate, and all other non-Catholic bishops to get out of the city, because the majority of Christians in that city are Catholic. Then, they could bribe the government to expel the Orthodox bishops of that city and rip up their visas. Thank God we live in free countries and things are not like that, nor wil they ever be.

I think that Patriarch Lubomyr's second proposal is ideal. It gives us a goal to strive for: unity -- to make it to the day when Christ's words will be fulfilled, "so that all may be one." (John xvii 21) We (well, us without telescopes, in the words of Fr. Taft) will be hearing those words tonight in one of the first Passion Gospels, so when you hear them, think about them.

Maybe your attitude, Alex, of appeasement may work. I guess the only way to get something you really want is to sacrifice for it. Unity -- we will achieve it.

Daniil

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Dear Orthoman:

Since your request for the Orthodox in Italy to share St. Peter's Basilica is a way bit too much, I hope this will suffice in the meantime while we work harder for our "eventual" unity:

ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome

Spanish Archdiocese Cedes a Church to Russian Orthodox

MADRID, Spain, APRIL 24, 2002 (Zenit.org).- Pamplona�s archbishop has given a church to the Russian Orthodox to serve the growing numbers of immigrants from the former Soviet republics.

Archbishop Fernando Sebastian and the Russian Orthodox Archdiocese in Western Europe signed an agreement for the free cession of the church in Baranain, a town in the province of Navarre, in northern Spain.

The purpose of the agreement is to "ensure the offices of the Russian Orthodox rite for the numerous faithful who reside in this region," the Spanish Catholic bishops� conference reported.

The text of the agreement establishes a five-year period during which annual meetings for exchange of information will be held between both institutions.

During this period, the Orthodox community will be responsible for the building�s maintenance, as well as the installation of elements necessary for the practice of Orthodox worship.


AmdG

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 784
Member
Member
OP Offline
Member
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 784
I think maybe letting each paticular church use St. Sofia's for different fuctions i.e consecration of a bishop, ordinations, etc. could be something actually workable. Since its the 'home plate' for all Ukrainian Eastern Christians, letting the UGCC, the UOC-KP, and the UAOC share it, the Temple would be a place of worship again, not a museum. This I believe is a good option until unity WILL be reached. Any takers? Suggestions? Dissagreements?

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: ukrainiancatholic ]

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 56
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 56
This is my first entry into this discussion. I would like to thank the Catholic Church for providing what appears to be an excellent forum for discussion. Having said that, a couple of things:

1. The agressive nature of the Catholic Church ("Greek" or Latin) is sad. The Orthodox do not have that much in this world. The Catholics have Rome, let us have our churches in the East.

2. Please, no more missionaires to convert Orthodox. The Pope should respect the East and the bishops who are charged to lead those areas. Real respect for Russia and the Ukraine would lead the Pope and his followers to stay out and lend any support they could for the Orthodox to reclaim their souls.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 393
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 393
I have to agree with JPOrthodox. Give it to the Orthodox. The history can be justified on both sides over posession so let those who have less have it. Of course, then the question arises as to which Orthodox jursidiction should be its keeper. Personally, I would push for UOC-MP. That seem to be more historically accurate as I see it. But then, there is the historical question again..

Dmitri

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 784
Member
Member
OP Offline
Member
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 784
Dmitri,
The UOC-MP on paper are "Ukrainian Orthodox" but really they are Russian Orthodox. Key word is Russian. Where is St. Sofia's? Ukraine. Metropolitan Vladimir, head of the UOC-MP is second in authority to Moscow and reports directly to the Patriarch of Moscow, therefore he is high in the Russian Orthodox Church.

St. Sofia's is spiritually and culturally the center of Ukraine and all Ukrainians. Moscow have their own important churches like Christ the Savior and the St. Basil's church and all the others. St. Sofia rightly belongs to the Ukrainian jurisdictions be it Orthodox or Greek Catholic. God willing it will be the center of the united Kyivan Church. That is the purpose of this thread was to shed eccummenical light amoungst the Ukrainian Churches, not Moscow controlled churches.

jporthodox, just for future reference, Ukraine is addressed as Ukraine, no "the Ukraine."

Is St. Sofia's rightfully the Ukrainian Orthodox's as of now in my opinion? Yes, but I think it should be shared by all 3 Ukrainian churches as I stated up above in an earlier response. Sorry to come on so strong, but St. Sofia's should not be a Moscow Patriarchal temple.
-ukrainiancatholic

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: ukrainiancatholic ]

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 393
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 393
Although I understand your point, I think nationalism does more harm than good to Christianity. As a fellow Slav, I can appreciate the idea of tribal loyality. However, perhaps we should take example from our middle-eastern brothers. The Antiochean Chruch, for instance, crosses many ethnic peoples under one omophorion. Why don't we? Then, of course, you add in the fact that there are three (or four) different "national" churches in the same country. No wonder unity seems so distant. We don't even get along with ourselves. Just my thoughts...

Dmitri

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 268
FAW Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 268
Quote
Originally posted by Dmitri Rostovski:
Although I understand your point, I think nationalism does more harm than good to Christianity. As a fellow Slav, I can appreciate the idea of tribal loyality. However, perhaps we should take example from our middle-eastern brothers. The Antiochean Chruch, for instance, crosses many ethnic peoples under one omophorion. Why don't we? Then, of course, you add in the fact that there are three (or four) different "national" churches in the same country. No wonder unity seems so distant. We don't even get along with ourselves. Just my thoughts...

Dmitri

I think that one united Slav church would be a great thing. However, as soon as the Moscow Patriarchate is involved, there are many historical problems.

First the Church of Muscovy, later the Russian Orthodox Church, has a history of liquidation, subjugation, and oppression of the South Slavs of Ukraine. It rubs us Ukrainians and those of Ukrainian descent (who know their history) the wrong way when we look at how secular history has dealt us an unfair hand, especially since Kyiv is the Mother Church of Moscow, yet in Muscovite opinion, Kyiv should be subordinate to them. And it is secular history, not the Divine Providence. Muscovite's sacked Kyiv and ran off with precious icons and treasures in the 1300's, liquidated the Kyivan Church in 1646 and subjugated her under Moscow's authority. They destroyed St. Peter Mohyla's Liturgicons and Trebnyks. All the while the Southern Rusyns continued to identify themselves as different from the Musocvites. Are we all Rusyn's when it comes down to it? Yes. But we cannot forget the brutal past treatment of what we now call "Ukrainians", by those we now call "Russians".

I would be in favor of a united slavic Orthodox/Catholic Church under two conditions:

One: The Church will not become a tool for Russification, and to secure that:

Two: The patriarchate of Kyiv become the see of unity and leadership of this Slavic Church.

If this ain't acceptable to the russkies, well, they can just take their kiester's back up north and freeze in St. Basil's! And stay out of Saint Sophia's. It was only a Russian church as a result of military conquest!

ALity

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: Ality ]

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 268
FAW Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 268
Quote
Originally posted by Daniil:
Orthoman: [b]unity is achieved between Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics (which really means when the Ukrainian Orthodox join the Unia)!
Pardon me, but it looks like it will be the other way around.

Daniil[/b]

Daniil - I just wonder sometimes . . . why the UGCC does not return to Orthodoxy?

[I have heard that] The Roman Catholic Church has stated that "uniatism" was a mistake, so why does'nt the UGCC correct that "mistake", heal the deep cultural divisions that the Unia created in Ukraine, and work towards Christian unity from the other side?

Or better yet, since the UGCC is "sui juiris", why don't they make the decision to share communion with Rome and the Kyiv (Ukrainian Orthodox) and let Rome and Constantinople sit there and sqwawk and sqwabble for the next 150 years. Why is such a unilateral act unthinkable without it being the incentive of either Rome, or Constantinople? This question was brought up by the Kyivan Study Group in Ottawa and all I know of their conclusions was that is impossible?

Why? If it can be imagined, then it is possible.

ALity

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: Ality ]

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 784
Member
Member
OP Offline
Member
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 784
Ality stated:
I just wonder sometimes . . . why the UGCC does not return to Orthodoxy?

Ality,
I think the majortiy of the UGCC members in Ukraine are very staunch Catholics and are very latinized and generally don't have warm feelings towards Orthodoxy in general so to get everyone to convert over would be a a big feat and not to mention a miracle.
-ukrainiancatholic

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: ukrainiancatholic ]

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 268
FAW Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 268
Yeah, that may be the truth. wink However, most of those latinized GC's are the older generation. Those youngin's comin' outta the LTA are another breed altogether.

But still, the political cirsumstance of 16th century Ruthenia (Ukraine) is not the same now. There are no Polish RC nobles in control of an occupied Ruthenia any more.

ALity

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,272
Likes: 20
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,272
Likes: 20
Dear Ality and UC,

The issue of unity between the UGCC and the Orthodox Churches is precisely one reason why St Sophia should be in good Ukrainian Orthodox hands now.

It has been in atheistic government hands for too long.

God forgive me, but I believe our Major Archbishop has made a mistake in this.

As for the UGCC joining with Orthodoxy, this opens up an entire interesting can of "hrobaky."

There are many members of the UGCC that are not "Latinized" but who would not compromise their loyalty to Rome.

Also, such a reunification is more, as it always is, than merely theological gymnastics.

It involves tradition and culture as well. That of the Church of Galicia versus that of the Church of Greater Ukraine, which has always been a sore point.

The martyrs beatified by the Pope are not simply Catholic martyrs, but saints of the Galician Church.

People still remember our Orthodox friends ridicule these martyrs, as we Catholics ridiculed the very idea of an Orthodox saint - something Bl. Basil Velichkovsky mentions in his "Rule for Missionaries" in that book published about him.

If such a unity were broad-minded, allowing for the amalgamation of both rich traditions with a renewed "union with Rome" (not what we have now, Heaven help us) that would be acceptable to the Orthodox - then we really would have achieved something.

But that is way in the future. St Sophia belongs to Ukrainian Orthodoxy in jurisdictional terms.

It belongs to all Ukrainians by right of religious and national pride.

It also belongs to the entire Christian East.

A Happy Pascha!

Alex

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 784
Member
Member
OP Offline
Member
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 784
Alex stated:
"The martyrs beatified by the Pope are not simply Catholic martyrs, but saints of the Galician Church."

Galician?? Talk about Ukrainian usage! It is Kyiv not Kiev, Galicia not Halychyna!! :p You were right when you said that St. Sophia belongs to the whole Christian East. That is so true because St. Sophia's in Kyiv is the spiritual foundation for all Eastern Slavs.

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 425
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 425
The only reason that the UOC-MP seems more legitimate is because it oppressed all the other churches with the help of the KGB.

Daniil

Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  Father Anthony 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5