www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev)

[Latinization and Polonization are sore spots in the past. Yet, Russification continues to this day, because the Russian Church has been a political machine for centuries.]

And the Roman Catholic Church hasn't been and is no longer a sore spot where your Church is concerned? Then why did you post? -

[The arrangement we have with Rome is not fair. Institutionally we cannot make decisions, set forth policy, canonize saints for our Church.

Meanwhile, Chicago still does not have a bishop, our Churhc in Ukraine had to get "permission" to establish the eparchy of Donetsk-Kharkiv from Rome, becasue "eastern" Ukraine was not our "traditional" teritory of the Uniate Church. However, Peremyshyl, part of our traditinoal territory, is outside of our jurisdiction becasue it is in present day Poland. The double stanards are glaring and I know that you already know this.
I think our Church should start acting unilaterally and not waiting for the command from Rome to "sit", or "roll over".]


What you have written above certainly doesn't seem to indicate past sore spots but present realities that you over look in your hatred.
It seems that your whole church is based upon hatred, nationalism, and politics. Doctrine and theology don't seem to the factors in the justification of its existence. Only hatred and nationalism.
How many great theologians has the Unia produced since its inception? I'm not talking about great Hierachs or martyred saints. Protestantism has also produced great leaders and martyrs. I'm talking theologians that have written books or papers on the theology of Christianity. How about present day theologians that are on the par of Schmemann, Meyendorff, Constatine Platis, Anthony Coniaris, etc.? Every Ukrainian Catholic bookstore I've gone in has about 80% of their books by Orthodox theologians. The other 25% are Roman Catholic.
What I am hearing from both of you is - 'We'll pick who we perceive to be the lesser of two evils. And that is the one we will bow down to for the time being.
Every Ukrainin Orthodox Church I have ever been in has it's own beautiful and unique Ukrainian customs. So I don't see where the Russification comes in. Especially since I have been in Ukrainian Catholic Churches with no Iconstasis, Icons with the 'sacred heart' & 'immaculate heart', western style Altars, statues, etc. So, who has changed your Ukrainian identity more? The Russians or the Roman Catholics who you pay allegiance to? Personally I prefer to see the Theotokos & child dressed in Ukrainian cross stitch peasant blouses (like the UOC in my area) than with the immaculate and sacred heart.
You see, in spite of all the squabling amongst the various Orthodox jurisdicions, when someone asks me why I am Orthodox I know its because of the doctrines that formulate its faith. But you on the other hand, seem to be telling me you are Ukrainian Catholic because it prevents your church from being Russified. Why at the same time you complain about the lack of freedom it has under RC domination. Makes no sense to me. Guess maybe its because I preceive religion altogether different than you do.

CHRIST IS RISEN!

OrthoMan

OrthoMan,
Our Chicago Eparchy's new bishop is supposed to be announced at Sobor this summer in Ukraine.

I have seen many ikony with Ukrainian embroidery in Ukrainian Cath. Churches. Some Ukrainian Catholic Churches are more eastern and traditional than some Ukie Orthodox churches. Take Sts. Volodymyr and Olha in Chicago, St. Nick's in Toronto or our fav. traditional church, St. Elias .

Most Ukrainian Orthodox Churches I have seen are latinized. I have been to many because most of my family is Orthodox and many were/are priests and one bishop. Many of thier icons are western in style and rectangluar Holy Tables. In Ukraine, this Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral in L'viv had stations and a statue of Mary! The side chapel didn't even have an iconostas. The church has always been Orthodox too. Does this make the Ukrainian Orthodox bad? No. I love the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. It is a great and holy church of martyrs.

Hatred is a harsh word. Theology and doctrine are very big in our existence. Saying that the basis of our existance as Christians and as a Church is based on hatred and nationalism is not only hurtful and wrong but also definately not in Christian Spirit. You don't seem to be to fond of Ukrainian Catholics.

Whats wrong with nationalism? Taken to the extreme isn't the best but being nationalistic is what makes us what we are as a Ukrainian church. Some of our greatest figures weren't full Ukrainian if at all like St. Petro Mohyla or Andrey Sheptytsky, the latter being part Polish I believe.

Looking for some Ukr. Cath. theologians? Check out the Sheptytsky Insitute in Ottawa with Fr. Andriy Chirovsky or Fr. Galadza.

Xpucmoc Bockpec! BoicmuHy Bockpec!
-ukrainiancatholic

'Liud Ukrayinskiy zavzhdy Tviy.'

[Theology and doctrine are very big in our existence.]

Then by all means tell me just what is the theology of your church? What exactly is the theology of the Ukrainian Catholic Church? Is it that or the Orthodox Catholic Church or the Roman Catholic Church? If its that of the RCC then why the offense taken when someone identifies you as a Roman Catholic of the Eastern Rite? What are the principal doctrines you are required to believe to be considered a Ukrainian Catholic in good standing?

Do you believe in the Immaculate Conception?
Do you believe in Papal Supremecy?
Do you believe in Papal infallibility?

You see, as an Orthodox Catholic, that answer is very simple for me. I can state it in one sentence by just declaring I believe and accept every doctrine that was formulated during the first seven ecumenical councils. Now, do you believe in only the doctrines formulated during the first seven ecumenical councils, or do you believe in the doctrines added by the RCC after those councils? If you believe in those doctrines added by Rome then, once again, why the offense at being called a Roman Catholic?

[Most Ukrainian Orthodox Churches I have seen are latinized. I have been to many because most of my family is Orthodox and many were/are priests and one bishop. Many of thier icons are western in style and rectangluar Holy Tables. In Ukraine, this Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral in L'viv had stations and a statue of Mary! The side chapel didn't even have an iconostas. The church has always been Orthodox too. Does this make the
Ukrainian Orthodox bad?]

And where did all that come from? It certainly wasn't from the Russians. It came from the Unia.
So it was neither the Russians nor the Orthodox that polluted the faith (both Orthodox & Ukrainian Catholic) with westernization now was it?

[Whats wrong with nationalism?]

Nothing as long as it doesn't take priority over God and religion where the church is concerned.
So why is it that every time the UCC is brought up the discussion is on nationalism and politics? Never on what you believe regarding Christ and his Church.

Orthoman

What's it to you, about our theology?

What spiritual satisfaction and grace will you get if I and others answering these questions?

You are a member of the OCA, formally under Moscow. You are not Ukrainian Catholic so therefore why do you ask so much about our church?

Do you really seek information about our church or are you out to try to prove a point and put us down?

You really seem to have a bitterness towards our UCC. Why?

So instead of you asking me many questions and vice versa, lets get back on topic; St. Sophia's Cathedral in Kyiv, it's cultural and spiritual importance to Kyivan-Rus' a.k.a. Ukraine. Lets get back on topic by discussing it's importance in the future role as the focal point of a unified Kyivan Church. Please leave your bitterness and vendetta towards the UCC out of this thread, and lets focus on St. Sophia and a one-day unified Kyivan Church.

-ukrainiancatholic
Liud Ukrayinskiy zavzhdy Tviy

[What's it to you, about our theology?
What spiritual satisfaction and grace will you get if I and others answering these questions?]

Because that is why I am here. To discuss religious beliefs and the theology. I have learned many different things from many different people of many different religious backgrounds by being in here. And hopefully others have learned from me. That is the purpose of this forum. My knowledge of the religious opinions and concepts of other Christian denominations has been enriched.

[Do you really seek information about our church or are you out to try to prove a point and put us down?
You really seem to have a bitterness towards our UCC. Why?]

Yes I do seek info about your church. But once again, excuse my honesty, it seems that when the UGCC is brought up, the replies are in the context of either politics, anti Russian rhetoric, or fierce Ukrainian nationalism. Never theology.
It is because of that I have the concept I do about the UGCC.
I have had many enriching conversations with both Byzantine Catholics and Roman Catholics on this forum regarding doctrine and theology. I may not agree with what they say but at least I know where they stand. Therein lies the difference.

[So instead of you asking me many questions and vice versa, lets get back on topic; St.Sophia's Cathedral in Kyiv,]

You are absolutely right. I will withdraw my questions so that the subject matter can get back on track.

OrthoMan

Dear Orthoman,

Quite right, those Ukrainians are a confused lot! .

Alex

[ 05-13-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Dear Orthoman,

You ask good questions, to be sure.

The Immaculate Conception is a Latin doctrine intended to come up with the same conclusion about the Mother of God as the Eastern Church's liturgical tradition has had for centuries - that She was conceived in holiness.

The "pith and substance" of the doctrine is simply that. The way it was couched was to address the Augustinian penal notions of Original Sin that the East never accepted.

We continue to celebrate the "Conception of St Anne" and in doing so we celebrate what took the West a while to realize.

The papal doctrines are a different kettle of fish, but we have our own perspective on these.

For us, union with Rome as the centre of Christianity is something that characterized the first thousand years of the undivided Orthodox and Catholic Church of Christ.

Although undoubtedly the doctrinal issues involving the papacy are different today, we continue to look to Rome as to the source of overall Church unity, while fostering our Particular Church traditions, theology and liturgical life.

John Meyendorff wrote that even these papal doctrines could be "re-presented" before an Ecumenical Council.

So in and of themselves, they are not necessarily against Orthodox theology.

And, yes, this Forum is an excellent place to learn about the spirituality and traditions of the Byzantine Catholic Churches.

If you don't like them, no one says you have to. You should respect the views of others, or so my grandmother said .

Anyone is welcome to come and participate here - we don't do business here on a "screen and approve" basis.

Alex

The terms hatred, and nationalism are not appropriate when addressing my points of view. If you knew me, you would not say such things. I will leave this point on that note.

The current reality of my Church is not the result of overt political/military/or social pressure by Rome. It is mostly the result of actions of our own hierarchs.

Contrast that to what the Russian Orthodox Church willfully and knowingly has done to the Ukrianian Greek Catholic Church: 1) the pseudo-synod of Lviv in 1946 2) tacit support of the imprisonment of our bishops 1946-1990 3) The outright absorption of our churches and liquidation into the Russian Orthodox Church. 4) The refusal of the ROC, to this day, to call us Greek Catholics, preferring to use the pejorative term "uniates" against our wishes AND the ROC's current position maintaining that the pseudo-synod of Lviv in 1946 was actually canonical! The main difference between Rome and Moscow, is that Rome, no matter how much they distort and pervert our rite, has and continues to honor our right to exist in the world, where as the ROC would just assume destroy us through any means objectively at their disposal. One need only to look at the current scandal in Russia concerning the Roman Catholic Church in Russia to see the extremes the ROC will go to propagate their agenda. Now you ask yourself, honestly, who is being more hate filled and natinalistic?



The current state of our church with regard to Rome in fact answers this question. The changes in the RCC in regard to the Greek Catholic Churches can be found in documents such as "Orientale Lumen" and "Unt Unum Sint". Rome has done a complete 180 in regards to our church and now after years of repression from them, they "command" us to return to our traditions. You are absolutely right concerning the scholarship of our churches, it has not been there, largely in part to the historical trqagedies of our church. But I believe that this is changing and I will cite some works later which you can look into. The main point I am trying to impress upon you is that Rome has changed(repented) and supports the Greek Catholic Churches in regaining their patrimony. However, Moscow has not changed et all. The only good Greek Catholic Church in Moscow'ss eyes, is one that does'nt exist. And that is why I will "bow down to [Rome] in the time being".

The choice to remain under the immediate watch of Rome is the choice of our bishops, who at this time, are of the generation who was formed prior to Vatican II and are ingrained to believe that they "must" obey Rome at every breathe. The fact that they approved the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, even though they thought it had serious problems, testifies to this pyschological dependency on Rome. I expect that the new generation of Bishops will begin a change in the opposite (more Orthodox) direction. This frustrates me and leads me to post statements on this forum that you have quoted from me. But frustration and "righteous" anger at injustice is not a reason for divorce. Just like in a marriage, one does not end it because one's spouse upsets them, or acts improperly in certain instances. Love merits more and my ancestors long ago, the hiers to the Orthodox Church of Kyiv, decided that for better or for worse, union with Rome was the right decision for our Church and I am a testimony to that decision. And I will work for the vision they had of "Orthodox in Communion with Rome".


The Christian Heritage of the East by Rev. Julian Katrij, OSBM

The Jesus Prayer A monk of the Eastern Church (yes, he was tonsured and ordianed by Met. Sheptytsky and you cannot disregard that fact when reading his works, although he is in fact regarded as Orthodox).

The Byzantine Divine Liturgy by Meletius Michael Solovey, OSBM

The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom by Laurence Daniel Huculak, OSBM



The Romans - The Russians would just destroy our church and people, so there would be nothing left to change!



No that is not what I am saying, I never said that, Please don't twist my word to say such things. (very Russian of you, if I might add)

You should know why I am a Greek Catholic by now.



If you say so, you obiviously would know.


Indeed He is Risen!
ALity

[ 05-13-2002: Message edited by: ALity ]

I certainly hope and pray that the next generation of Byzantine bishops does not pull us into Orthodoxy without them first reuniting with Rome! It is rather sad that such open schism can be propagated in our Church by those who, like fifth columnist, seek to sow dissention and discord in order to divide the body of Christ.

Also, where does one notice this present "pro-Orthodox trend in the Eastern rite? In Europe, Greek Catholics are still fighting and dying in order to protect their Churches from siezure and liquidation by the Churches that we now call "sisters". I really cannot imagine such a movement beinf fostered in that part of the world to return to people who already wish their absorbtion. No, I think that this movement is basically an American thing propagated by an our very own "American Greek Catholics" who themselves have never suffered a single thing for their union with Rome and probably do not value it as much as their brethren acros the seas who daily are reminded that they are Catholic by those that their Church calls "sisters".


I do not mean to be offensive in my comments on this subject but I am a person that does not like to gloss over issues that I feel strongly about. While I am happy that the Eastern rites are trying to get back to their traditions, in no way can I endorse a whole sale return to Orthodoxy in order to do it. I am proud to be Catholic and am willing at this very moment to lay down my life for the Holy Father and our Holy Mother, the Church if the situation required just as my Greek Catholic brothers in Eastern Europe are doing daily. These people are shinning examples of our religion as they exceopt all manner of evils for the deffense and propagation of their faith, may God grant that we all have the courage and wisdom of these simple and puis folk in fighting for ours against a see of adviseries.

Robert K.

Dear Ality,

You da man, Big Guy, you da man!!

Alex

Kristos Voskrese,

If we are "sister" churches, then why fight at all? If the Orthodox want a piece of property so badly, then let them have it as long as Greek Catholics can worship as well. Eastern Christians (like myself) tend to be entirely too territorial. I find Eastern Catholics and Orthodox fighting over land to be as rediculous as ROCOR and ROC-MP arguing over churches. It is all about jurisdiction not faith. We all posses the same True Faith of the East. Sure, we may call a feast day by a different name or differ in our Menalogion or calander, but the Faith is there. I think that is the most important thing of all.

Dmitri

Dear Dmitri,

Points well taken!

But no matter what, Byzantine Catholics will be "Uniates" to the Orthodox, which means we are excommunicated heretics.

But that St Sophia in Kyiv was and is an Orthodox Shrine - of this there can be no doubt.

All I've said is that it would be a good thing if the Ukrainian Orthodox (the rightful owners) could allow other Churches, including the Eastern Catholic Church, to serve Divine Liturgy there, if only in a specially designated chapel.

The Shrine of Our Lady Of Walsingham in England is shared by Anglicans, Roman Catholics and Orthodox.

We should take an example from "This sceptred Island, this . . . England!"

Alex

[But no matter what, Byzantine Catholics will be "Uniates" to the Orthodox, which means we are excommunicated heretics.]

May I remind you that the term Uniate is of Latin origin and given to you by the Roman Catholic Church. Not the Russians or the Orthodox Catholic Church.

[All I've said is that it would be a good thing if the Ukrainian Orthodox (the rightful owners) could allow other Churches, including the Eastern Catholic Church, to serve Divine Liturgy there, if only in a specially designated chapel.]

Based on that analogy then why are the Orthodox in Livov able to share St george's Cathedral with the Ukrainian Greek Catholics?

Your analogy is very one sided Alex.

OrthoMan

Dear Orthoman,

It would be good if St George's in Lviv did allow the Orthodox to serve Liturgy there.

The Orthodox certainly served there for quite a few years . . .

In Lviv, however, and in Galicia, the MP Orthodox are not "flavour of the month." Something to do with a Sobor in 1946 and, oh yes, tanks as well.

Hopefully, the people will overcome that, just as the Russian Orthodox will hopefully overcome their feeling that Ukraine is their Patriarchal back-yard. But no time soon, alas.

St Sophia's is in quite a different category than any local church like that.

I know you don't like it when we talk like this, but it is a national Shrine in addition to being an Orthodox one.

And no one is saying that heretics should be allowed to serve Liturgy at the main altar but perhaps in a chapel as is done at Walsingham and other national shrines around the world.

Not one-sided, only practical and fair-minded.

Actually, you are wrong about Rome imposing the term "Uniate" on us.

Our Eastern Catholic forefathers did that themselves. They called themselves either "Orthodox in union with Rome" or else "Greco-Uniates."

Over time, the term "Uniate" became one of opprobrium and it has been discarded.

There are a lot of terms like that that have undergone an evolution.

We Byzantine Catholics ask the world not to use a term that is today offensive to us. And it's not like this issue hasn't been raised on this Forum before.

That is only common courtesy and general sensitivity to other's feelings. Perhaps your new forum will reflect these values one day as well.

Alex

[In Lviv, however, and in Galicia, the MP Orthodox are not "flavour of the month." Something to do with a Sobor in 1946 and, oh yes, tanks as well.]

As the Ukrainian Greek Catholic is not the flavor of the month in Kiev and eastern Ukraine. Something to do with 1596 I believe.

How many novels do you read where you only read the last chapter (1946) to analyze the situation. To get the full story you have to start from page one chapter one (1596). When to remain Orthodox were declared an act of treason -

{The council met in the city of Brest on October 6, 1596. In order to prevent a parallel Orthodox council in any of the numerious Orthodox churches in the city, THE METROPOLITAN OF KIEV SEALED ALL ORTHODOX CHURCHES ON THE DAY BEFORE THE COUNCIL WAS TO BEGIN, EXCEPT FOR THE CATHEDRAL WHERE THE COUNCIL WAS TO TAKE PLACE. The Orthodox, nevertheless, converged on Brest as well, with Prince Ostrozhskii and his private army at the head. Failing to find an open church, and after waiting in vain for an invitation from the Uniates, they accepted an offer of a Protestant church school hall for a separate Orthodox Council. The Uniate Council passed a resolution excommunicating all the Orthodox clergy and laity participating in the Orthodox Council. The Orthodox in turn suspended all the clergy and lay participants in the Uniate Council and addressed a petition to the King, asking him to deprive "the traitors" of their dioceses and parishes. But the King decided otherwise: his edict of October 15 legalized only those Byzantine-rite Christians who joined the Unia; IT DECREED THE ORTHODOX CHURCH NULL AND VOID AND ALL IT'S CLERGY EXCOMMUNCATED; WHILE CONTINUING MEMBERSHIP IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH WAS DECLARED TO BE AN ACT OF TREASON AGAINST THE STATE.}

Sound familiar? First and last chapters of the novel are almost parallel. As they say what goes around comes around. And history repeats itself.
Why is chapter one to be over looked and just the last chapter important?

OrthoMan