www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Patriarch Kyril visits Ukraine

I, with all do respect, disagree.

While The Greek Catholic Church recognized the Pope as the Head of the worldwide Catholic Communion of Churches the head of the UGCC, His Beatitude Lubomyr, and the synod of Bishops under him elect new bishops and upon the death of the Patriarch (or Major Archbishop) they elect a successor. If Rome controlled the Church then Rome would elect the bishops? Correct? The Ukrainian Church sends the news of the election to Rome and to all other brother Catholic Patriarchs announcing the election, not for approval but recognition of the fact- just as it is in the Orthodox Church.
If you are referring to the Latin rite Church in Ukraine then you are correct that they answer directly to the Pope since they belong to His patriarchal Church.

If the Russian Government is pushing the Russian Church doesn't that hint way to much to Soviet Era Church politics? It does to me and that is frankly scary.

Also the Moscow Patriarchate does feel that she should be the first among the Patriarchs with in the Orthodox world- the notion of Third Rome. Again I quoted the Patriarchs statement, “if Ukraine Greek Catholic Church recognized the supremacy of the Pope, Ukraine Orthodox can do the same with regard to Moscow." Speaks for itself.

Pray for me brother.

Of course, one way in which Kyiv could show its independence from Rome would be a formal, unilateral declaration of its patriarchal status (as opposed to its de facto declaration of that status by commemorating the Archbishop as patriarch in the Liturgy). But of course, if Kyiv did that, then the Orthodox would be screaming for Rome to rein in its wayward subjects.

Basically, its a matter of wanting their cake and eating it, too. For the Orthodox, nothing Kyiv does will adequately demonstrate its autonomy, while on the other hand, the Orthodox also dread the most straightforward way in which Kyiv could manifest its independence.

In point of fact, Kyiv has significantly more autonomy than does the UOC-MP.

"In point of fact, Kyiv has significantly more autonomy than does the UOC-MP."

Even if the Ukrainian Catholic Church did in fact have more autonomy than the UOC-MP which I do not believe it does it would still be a part of the Catholic Church and as such a foreign Church in Ukraine.

Ukraine is an Orthodox Country and it will remain so.

A National Orthodox Church in Communion with Rome is only possible in Ukraine if the whole of Ecumenical Orthodoxy Church comes in communion with the Roman Pontiff which can only happen as a result of an Ecumenical Council where the Synod of Bishops would make that decision.

Let us pray for this kind of Union and let us pray for a Canonical Autocephalous Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

While they are sorting out their status they might just get their act together (separately of course) and face up to the Evangelical Protestant invasion of Ukraine. They can worry about their "status" after they have taken steps to address this problem. Many Ukrainians have gone over to these Christian churches both in Ukraine and elsewhere. Missionaries from Australia already have an orphange given into their care and you can bet your bottom dollar that they dont take the children to Orthodox, or Catholic Churches on Sundays. Their website tells in diary form of children in the orphanage coming forward for an "altar Call". We have lost families here in Western Australia to such churches and these people are now involved in bring Christianity to Ukraine as translators amongst other things. If they dont deal with this the biggest problem since Communism they wont have to worry about their status.

The first and foremost reason that the UOC is not yet autocephalous is precisely because of the existence of the schismatic "churches". It would be most unshepherd-like for the ROC to abandon the UOC whilst it is beset by the baying wolves of the schismatics. Autocephaly will come once those who have left Christ's Church for reasons of mammon, not Christ, return to the folds of Holy Mother Church. Until then, the pastoral duty of the Church is to stand by those in the Ukraine who have remained loyal to Christ.

Alexandr

[quote=Slavipodvizhnik][quote=Subdeacon Borislav]

Having said that however I must say that I am thoroughly disappointed with some of the statements made by His Holiness Patriach Kiril. The implication that Ukraine does not need an independent Autocephalous Church is in my opinion plain wrong. Instead of helping set Ukraine on the path of canonical autocephally these kind of statements only further divide the already broken Church and serve to antagonize the nationalist forces.
[/quote]

The first and foremost reason that the UOC is not yet autocephalous is precisely because of the existence of the schismatic "churches". It would be most unshepherd-like for the ROC to abandon the UOC whilst it is beset by the baying wolves of the schismatics. Autocephaly will come once those who have left Christ's Church for reasons of mammon, not Christ, return to the folds of Holy Mother Church. Until then, the pastoral duty of the Church is to stand by those in the Ukraine who have remained loyal to Christ.

Alexandr [/quote]

Dear Alexandr,

I do not think that those who have left the fold of the Church can be persuaded to come back to anything less than a Canonical Ukrainian autocephalous Church...

Again, please do not take my statement as an attack on His Holiness. I have the utmost respect for the Patriarch and the Russian Church, however I do believe that Ukraine sorely needs her own Church.

Finally some of the statements made by His Holiness only give ammo to the ultra nationalists and the russophobes who are than able to turn around and say that MP never plans to cut the cord.

I don't think those Ukrainians who are in "schism" are outside of the Church and are serving mammon. Nor do I think we should call people by such terms as schismatics. It leads to know where and just creates more animosity and hatred when we should show love- Christ wants us to love our brothers and sister. While the Ukrainian Church is currently divided it doesn't mean they are not Orthodox. Historically speaking the Bulgarian Church was out of communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople for many years because it proclaimed itself Autocephalous. Did that make it a schismatic Church who stopped being Orthodox until communion was restored with Constantinople? It wasn't that long ago that the Russian Orthodox Church abroad was in "schism" from the MP.

So are we to say that all of those who resisted communion with Moscow were really schismatics? I would say not. The Russian Church should take care of the Russian Church and the Ukrainians should be able to govern their own Church affairs with out interference from Moscow.

I also agree that we should stop the assault on the Holy Faith by so-called missionaries who are trying to "convert" people. This is a big threat and also I don't think we here in America pay attention to it. I also think this happens in our country as well. I have been asked many times if I have been "saved" and when they ask me when I go to Church I am told that I haven't been. I tell them I am working on it and that God willing he will have mercy on my soul. Since I can't save myself- only the Lord can.

Praying that God protects his Holy Churches and the all Christians can come together so that we can be as the Lord wishes- One.

Should former Roman Catholic Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo be able to start his own Church and call it the Catholic Church after being laicized by Rome? What difference is there between him and former Metropolitan Filaret (Denisenko), the so called Kieven Patriarch, who was defrocked in 1992 and excommunicated in 1997 by the Orthodox Church?

Where do you get that ROCOR was in Schism from the MP? ROCOR was the free part of the Russian Church whilst the MP was enslaved. After God freed Russia from the communists, the enslaved part of the Church was able to return and reunite with the free part.

Have you ever been to the Ukraine, Nelson, my friend? What makes you think that the people want to separate themselves from canonical communion with their Great Russian brothers? I travel extensively in the Ukraine, and the Orthodox faithful are overwhelmingly in favor of maintaining communion with the Patriarch of all the Rus, despite the rantings of nationalistic interests.

Alexandr

Discussions of relations between Ukraine and Russia and among their respective Churches, whether Orthodox or Catholic, inevitably fails to bring out the best in anyone around here. The topics ignite flash-points way too easily. So, if the discussion is to continue, understand that there are guidelines (which apply equally to any thread topic).

Maintain discussion on a civil and charitable level, gentlepersons. Bandying about terms such as 'heretic' and 'schismatic' is neither particularly edifying nor conducive to civil discourse.

Likewise, we all adopt opinions on matters - and are free to express those - without the necessity that we have personally experienced a particular situation or traveled to a particular place. And, history has also demonstrated, time and again, that neither exposure to circumstances or a situation nor travel to a place guarantees that one has a meaningful understanding or knowledge of the same.

Working from those premises, everyone needs to understand that all are entitled to their opinions, that anyone's opinion is worth whatever credence you choose or choose not to accord it, but that, in dealing with one another, you are all bound to the expectations of polite intercourse in civil society.

Discuss, disagree, debate, even argue - but do it without being arrogant, contentious, condescending, overbearing, patronizing, personal, rude, or snide to others.

Many years,

Neil

NOTE: 'the Ukraine' is an unacceptable usage, as it is deemed derogatory by the Ukrainian people and is not accepted or acceptable usage.

The country is 'Ukraine' - not 'the Ukraine'. We had a long and bitter and divisive battle here on this matter some years back and I guarantee that it is not going to be repeated!

Having visited this or that geographic location is no guarantee of useful knowledge (I could quote some examples to prove it). But neither does it guarantee total ignorance!

Fr. Serge

"What makes you think that the people want to separate themselves from canonical communion with their Great Russian brothers?"

I agree with you 100% Alexandr, Ukrainians do not want to be separated from Russians, but what I fail to see is how exactly a Canonical autocephalous Church in Ukraine would serve to separate Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Christians. After all we would be bound by the blood and body of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

This is one of the points that is so troubling to me. His Holiness stated time and time again that the Moscow Patriarchate would not allow an unwanted separation of Ukrainians and Russians, but again, I do not see how this would be a separation. The Russian Church is in full communion with ALL Canonical Orthodox Churches in the world without them being under the Moscow Patriarch.

As of referring to KP as schismatics I have to say that regretfully Alexandr is right on this issue. As you know many in my family are Jewish. If for instance I feel like I am discriminated against in my Church I may have a wonderful worldly reason for starting my own Orthodox Jurisdiction, yet having a wonderful reason to do so does not give me the canonical right to ordain myself a patriarch and begin to lay my hands on people claiming that I have a right to serve in the Holy Mysteries. The Ecumenical Councils have previously dealt with such issues, in other words we have precedents in how to treat groups of this sort.

Having said that I must also say that I do not believe the statement that MOST people in KP are serving mammon. Rather I think that they have been lied to and led astray by the very few persons who lead them.

It would be an interesting twist if the See was moved from Moscow back to the Mother City of Kyiv/Kiev with the Patriarch's simple title: "Patriarch of All Rus". What would be result? Would that unite or divide the Church even more? Wouldn't that be a viable solution? I would be interested in Fr. Serge's thoughts on this also.

Ray

Still have that "Third Rome" thing working in the background, though.

Stuart...can you explain your statement, and what role "Third Rome" has or should not have at this time. I don't want to misunderstand or read anything into your statement.

Thanks! :-)

Ray

The patriarchal seat will never be moved back to Kyiv. The Russian self image still encompasses a vision of Moscow as the Third Rome ("Two Romes have fallen. A third still stands. There shall not be another"). For this to be true, Moscow must not only be the center of the world's greatest secular power, but also the one, true and greatest Church. The (highly irregular) transfer of the Russian metropolia to Moscow and its subsequent elevation to patriarchal status revolves around this imperial vision.