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

Dearest in Christ, Subdeacon Borislav:

We seem to be in agreement on this point, and also in our desire that Ukraine have a unified autocephalous church in communion with world Orthdoxy. That appears to be more than just a little to me; if we do agree upon the underlying problem and the eventual goal, then all we are disagreeing about is how we want to get from here to there.


Yours in Christ,

(Rev.) Paul Koroluk
Priest, UOC-KP

Dearest in Christ:

We may never be able to agree on the meaning of certain actions, but I had for some time begun to think that putting the past in chronological order might help us get a better idea of what explanations may or may not fit. I have tried to do so in the following, in which I strove to limit myself to those things that can be known, and refrain from guessing on people's motives.

(Rev.) Paul Koroluk
Priest, UOC-KP



1989

August 19 - The Church of Saints Peter and Paul in L'viv declares itself independent of the ROC. By the end of the month, several hundred parishes join to form the UAOC. The church reaches out to the UOC-USA in the Diaspora.

1990

January - The Kyiv Metropolia of the ROC re-registers as the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church” with a new constitution stating that the Sobor of the UOC is the ultimate decision-making authority of the church.

June - Alexei II elected Patriarch of Moscow. Metropolitan Filaret receives second-highest number of votes.

Octobor - ROC Synod grants “independence in self government” (not “autonomy” or “autocephaly”) to UOC.

October 27 - At St. Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv, Patriarch Alexei hands Tomos of “independence in self government” to Metropolitan Filaret, and enthrones the Metropolitan, heretofore “Metropolitan of Kyiv”, as “Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus-Ukraine”. Patriarch Alexei promises that the ROC will not interfere in the affairs of the UOC.

November 6 - Also at Saint Sophia, Metropolitan Mstyslav of the UOC-USA is enthroned by the hierarchy of the UAOC as the first Patriarch of Kyiv. Patriarch Mstyslav states that the future of the Ukrainian Church must be decided by Ukrainians and that it must be led by a Patriarch of Kyiv, not Moscow or Constantinople. Mstyslav, not Filaret, is the first Patriarch of Kyiv.

There are now two Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, the UOC under Metropolitan Filaret, and the UAOC under Patriarch Mstyslav.

1991

August 24 - Ukraine declares independence.

June - UOC Synod calls national Sobor to be held in November.

November 1-3 - National Sobor is held. In accordance with rules of the UOC Constitution, voting delegates include all UOC bishops; clergy and lay delegates from each diocese; and a delegate from each monastery, seminary, and recognized lay brotherhood. All deliberations are filed and the Sobor is televised. The Sobor unanimously passes a resolution stating that going forward the UOC would operate as an autocephalous church. A separate resolution, also unanimous, affirms the church's desire that Metropolitan Filaret be its primate. The UOC sends letters asking the ROC Synod to grant its formal blessing, and calling upon the UAOC to unite into a single UOC.

1992

January - Three UOC bishops, all of whom were present at and voted during the Sobor, declare the resolutions of the UOC Sobor invalid. These bishops cease to commemorate Patriarch Filaret and ignore resolutions of the UOC Synod effecting their transfer.

February 4 - Patriarch Alexei sends a telegram to Metropolitan Filaret labeling the three bishops “schismatics”, but asking that the UOC Synod "...not apply canonical punishments to the schismatics".

February 18-19 - ROC Synod meets and affirms that "With all our knowledge, we do affirm that the Holy Synod of the ROC is not involved in those church distempers that developed within the UOC and deeply hurt us." At the same time, the Synod passes a resolution offering protection to the bishops in opposition (those whom Patriarch Alexei called "schismatic" in his telegram of February 4) declaring, "Everyone who remains faithful to Orthodoxy will receive our canonical ministerial blessing, and will not be left to the mercy of evil forces."

March 30 - April 2 - The ROC Synod meets with a single agenda item, to consider the resolution passed by the UOC Sobor four months earlier, in November 1991. Instead, the only matter discussed is a demand that Metropolitan Filaret resign. On the second day, Metropolitan Filaret agrees to submit his resignation to the UOC Synod, and the ROC Synod passes this resolution:

“The Council of Bishops took into account the statement of the Most Reverend Filaret, Metropolitan of Kyiv and of All-Ukraine, that for the sake of church peace, at the next Council of Bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, he will submit a request to be relieved from the position of the Primate of the UOC. Understanding of the position of Metropolitan Filaret, the Council of Bishops expressed to him its gratitude for the long period of labor as Archbishop of the See of Kyiv and blessed him to serve as Archbishop at another cathedral of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.”

April 4 (?) - Metropolitan Filaret returns to Kyiv and recants his resignation. The UOC Synod agrees and refuses to allow Metropolitan Filaret to resign.

April 14 - Metropolitan Filaret holds a press conference in which he states that undue pressure was exerted at the ROC Synod in Moscow, both directly and through threats made by the FSB "security guards". Archbishop Yakiw of Lutsk, who was present in Moscow, concurs. The Metropolitan recants his resignation on the grounds that his resignation would not bring peace to the Church, would contradict the will of the believers, and would be uncanonical (citing, among other grounds, the Canonical Epistles of Bishop Cyril of Alexandria and the 9th Canon of the Third Ecumenical Council).

May 27 - The ROC secretly organizes a Synod in the border city of Kharkiv at which, behind closed doors, a number of bishops of the UOC recant their votes and elect Bishop Vladimir (who, as ROC representative in Ukraine, was neither a member of the UOC Synod nor a bishop of the UOC) as Metropolitan of Kyiv.

June 11 - The Full Synod of the ROC defrocks Metropolitan Filaret. Discussions prior to the resolution raise many allegations, but the resolution itself does not state any grounds. The Synod tables discussion of the resolutions passed by UOC Sobor of November 1991, stating that the matters must be considered by the Sobor of the ROC. (Although the ROC Constitution states that a Sobor must be held at least once every five years, the next Sobor would not be held until 2009, after the death of Patriarch Alexei; the tabled resolutions would not be brought up.)

June – Metropolitan Filaret communicates a response asking to face all accusations in open church court and affirming his right to appeal, sending copies to the Primates of all the autocephalous churches. The ROC Synod never responds.

June 25-26 – A UOC / UAOC unification Sobor is held. Most bishops in the UOC do not attend, as do a minority of the UAOC bishops. Those delegates that do assemble agree to unite into a single church under Patriarch Mystyslav, who formally accepted this structure under his protection. This group becomes the UOC-KP.

There are now three Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, the UOC(MP) under Metropolitan Vladimir, and the UAOC and UOC-KP, both under Patriarch Mstyslav.

1993

Upon the repose of Patriarch Mystyslav, the UOC Sobor elects Volodymyr (Romaniuk) as the second Patriarch of Kyiv. Archbishop Antony of the UOC-USA is one of the candidates.

1994

In Constantinople, the hierarchy of the UOC-USA enter into an agreement renouncing autocephaly and making the church an archdiocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

1995

Upon the repose of Patriarch Volodymyr, the Sobor of the UOC- KP voting by secret ballot elects Metropolitan Filaret Patriarch of Kyiv and all Rus-Ukraine by a vote of 160 to 5. (OCA Archbishop Lazar (Puhalo), who was then with the UOC-KP, was among the voting delegates.)

1997

Holy Synod of ROC imposes anathema on Patriarch Filaret.

Dear Subdeacon Borislav,

I heartily recommend that you read the book captioned below for a different viewpoint. The author demonstrates that when the Ukrainian area known as Volyn was ceded to Poland by Russia, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Redemptorists immediately began trying to bring back to their Church those former Greek Catholics who had been forced by Russian authorities to join the Orthodox Church. At first, they enjoyed great success. But, the author points out that Polish authorities did not want anything Ukrainian to be successful. They did not want Ukrainians to have any self-identity. They saw the UGCC as a threat, and not as a body which would be subservient to Poland. They wanted Ukrainians to become Latin-Rite Catholics. The author indicates that Polish authorities deliberately set out burning down Orthodox churches in Volyn, thus "pulling the rug out" from the efforts of the Greek Catholic Redemptorists. Many who belonged to Orthodox parishes in Volyn then looked upon the UGCC as a puppet church subservient to those who were burning down Orthodox Churches!

Dn. Robert

http://bvmartyrshrine.com/images/Charnetsky-Book2web.gif

BLESSED BISHOP Nicholas Charnetsky, C.Ss.R. and Companions - edited by Fr. John Sianchuk, C.Ss.R. is the story of four modern Ukrainian Redemptorist martyrs: Nicholas Charnetsky, Vasyl Velychkovsky, Ivan Ziatyk, and Zenon Kovalyk. Published by Liguori Press. 112 pages

Code 20-01 $10.00

To Order...

Telephone: (204) 338-7321

E-Mail: bvshrine@mts.net



(Prices are in Canadian funds and do not include shipping. Shipping prices
to be determined by the weight and destination. Payment to be received before items are shipped)

Patriarch Kirill has finished his visit to Ukraine - Interfax

August 7, 2009

Rovno, August 5, Interfax - Ten-day pastoral visit of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia to Ukraine has finished on Wednesday afternoon. The Primate visited eleven cities and towns of the country.

Patriarch Kirill left airport of the western Ukrainian city of Rovno for Moscow at about 04:30 p.m. local time (05:30 Moscow.)

Some unique events distinguished this visit: first time in history the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate took place in Kiev, for the first time ever the Russian Church Primate visited the place where St. Vladimir had been baptized in Khersones and celebrated the Divine Liturgy there.

Patriarch Kirill's pastoral visit to Ukraine started on July 27 in Kiev with festive celebrations of Russia's Baptism. From this day and during the whole period of his stay in Ukraine, Patriarch Kirill emphasized the importance of spiritual unity between peoples of historical Rus now divided by state borders.

These statements aroused harsh reaction on the Patriarch's position from church schism advocates. Nationalists from the Svoboda Association even demanded to initiate a criminal case against the Primate of the Russian Church and deport him from the country.

However, according to chronicle of the Patriarch's visit, his opponents were always in minority while crowds of Ukrainians enthusiastically welcomed the high guest. Many of them even came from other regions of the country to pray with the Patriarch.

Today's celebrations in the Pochayev Laura in Volyn culminated the patriarchal program (by the way, it has been the first time Patriarch of Moscow visited this part of Western Ukraine.) Despite the forecasts, schismatics didn't manage to disturb celebrations of the 450th anniversary of bringing the Pochayev Icon of the Mother of God as they were very few and not even allowed to the Laura, where about 50 thousands of parishioners of canonical Orthodox Church prayed.

The main impression the Patriarch got from his visit to Ukraine was that "people keep sincere faith in their hearts despite of numerous hardships and divisions in political and social spheres that penetrated into church life."

"I'm deeply convinced that this power of people's spirit will help Ukrainian state and Ukrainian society overcome hardships and strive to achieve the objectives that will contribute in spiritual expectations of Ukrainian people," Patriarch Kirill said summing up his visit.

www.orthodoxnews.com [orthodoxnews.com]

Who Did Patriarch Kirill Come to Visit in Ukraine?

Bishop IHOR (Isichenko), Archbishop of Kharkiv and Poltava of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC)

An interesting thing: after the visit of the Moscow Patriarch to Ukraine a few Russian observers hastily talked about the new aspects of Ukrainian politics in the Russian Orthodox Church, about the respect to the Ukrainian people, its sovereignty, about brotherly sentiments displayed by the primate. Patriarch Kirill himself without unnecessary discretion already mentioned at a meeting with Russian President Medvedev about the crowds of people who recited during his trip “Kirill is our Patriarch” as if testifying the preservation of the spiritual community of the Ukrainian and Russian peoples.

For the Ukrainian who followed the visit and listened to the public addresses of Patriarch Kirill and the people surrounding him it is a rather strange interpretation. But for us it is hard to understand just how much the image of Ukraine is mythologized, even, and maybe, first and foremost, in the vision of our closest neighbors.

When Patriarch Kirill traveled across Ukraine, I read a book with an interview of Father Joakhym Badeni, a Polish Dominican, whose parents had an estate in Busk at the beginning of the 20th century. Fascinatingly describing his love to Ukraine, Father Badeni, the son of an Austrian diplomat and grandson of a Galician vicar, recalls the Buh, a long-bearded lirnyk, the steppes, which to him seemed to start somewhere nearby (beyond Busk), and all of this is associated in his conscious with images of the Senkevychev trilogy. A Russian adherent to Ukraine, most likely, will also search for personages from Gogol among us: simpletons, cunning-naïve and servile folk. Attempts of such a simple-minded, infantile people to build their own state life are perceived as inopportune. Though maybe rarely a rich ruler, having drank cognac after the sauna, begins to amicably ask our foreign worker somewhere on the construction of a dacha near Moscow: “Ivan, you are a khokhol, one of us, a Russian man, why do you need independence?” From the forced misfortune, our people learned to warm up in such situations to the interlocutor. And he does not presume that the Ukrainian Gastarbeiter has his national dignity and perceives his words by the image.

I had the impression that Patriarch Kirill himself and the Muscovite organizers of his visit compiled a program in account of this mythological country, where there live cinematographic Taras Bulbas ready to lay down their lives for the Muscovite tsar, protecting him from the Catholic enemies; a country which for years models in the conscious of Russian and ancient cultural stereotypes, and new propagandistic stamps. If there were no Yushchenko, then in this country there would be no myths, no UAOC with UOC-KP, no discussions about autocephaly. And this country would have probably been returned to Moscow under the status of an autonomous republic.

Taking a voyage in this country with modern technologies is easier than in Potemkin times. Beautiful Ukrainian monasteries create a wonderful background. Silent mimes take the place of the local clergymen. The role of the grateful and devoted flock is fulfilled by the staunch babushkas of different ages and colorful kozachkas who were driven in on buses. People of high standing of course complete the picture, who clearly demonstrated before the TV cameras their devotion to “canonical Orthodoxy.”

For the modern Ukrainian the ostentatious exuberance of the Divine Services, actively demonstrated the richness and influence of the Muscovite guests, solely political rhetoric, undisguised supremacy regarding the local traditions and ignorance of the real order of things led the patriarchal visit beyond the dimensions of real life in the sphere of the church “reality show.” Finally, contact with the flock was not anticipated and the assiduous protection of the participants of the visit from any sort of outside contacts. A series of reports about the visit of Patriarch Kirill in Ukraine appeared in the everyday life of millions of his parishioners, who continued to exist in a completely different dimension, more than a popular television series. Doubtfully, participants of the festive services can still now remember the words from the patriarchal sermons.

But there is one indisputable achievement of the patriarchal visit, which not only the faithful of the UOC-MP should be grateful, but also the faithful of the UOC-KP and various fragments the UAOC. This somewhat irrational visit forced us to ponder with an especially acuteness about the modern mission of the Orthodox Church and its perspectives. We will presume that with God’s will we will overcome the schism. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church will become one and will occupy a worthy position in the diptych of the National Church, somewhere there after the Russian one. And what next? Again return to the Middle Ages to the Byzantine “symphony” of the church and state? To care about the clan privileges of the clergy who increase the church property and political influence of the clergy? Return to the past or again come to the God-fighting revolution and the outburst of militant anti-clericalism?

The visit of Patriarch Kirill very clearly showed which Orthodox Church contemporary political and business elites would like to see. Furthermore, it also again brought to our attention the key problems of the Ukrainian Orthodox community: how would we like to see a united National Church in our future – not only from the view of a solely canonical or world-view, but also regarding the methods of its realization in the pastoral mission, relations of clergy and laymen, the language of the services and sermons in the broad culturological or even semiotic sense, social service, administrative order, organizations of personal management, and so on. [For] this it would be suitable to thank our recent Muscovite guest.

http://www.risu.org.ua/eng/religion.and.society/analysis/article;30967/

And the good Bishop obviously thinks that a more effective way to lead Ukraine to autocephally is to cause a schism within a schism. After all his own group is a splinter group of the UAOC.

The Holy Spirit does not divide and the so called KP has already been divided into 3 or 4 splinter groups.

This is an obvious sign of the fact that there is something wrong.

The Holy Spirit doesn't divide but we as fallen men do. Praying that all the Orthodox in Ukraine can come together in God's love is what we need to do.

Subdeacon Borislav,
I am wondering from your perspective on what constructive role the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the USA (South Bound Brook) can have in healing the schisms in Ukraine.

Ray

"Subdeacon Borislav,
I am wondering from your perspective on what constructive role the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the USA (South Bound Brook) can have in healing the schisms in Ukraine.

Ray"


Dear Ray, please keep in mind the fact that I do not represent the views of the majority of the people who belong to the UOCUSA. My opinions are mine and mine alone. Folks may share some of my sentiments, but I suspect many in our Church feel a spiritual tie to the UAOC. That is not to say that we are allowed to commune or concelebrate...

Having said that I have to say that at the moment UOCUSA can not do much to heal the schism. We can and certainly pray for our brethren in Ukraine but I do not see us as a party that can at least at the moment present a constructive solution to the problem at hand. Remember, we are a Church of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and His Holiness did not and will not recognize the KP in its current state.

I think if you really want an answer to your question you would have to speak to one of our Bishops...

I understand that I really did not answer you and for that I a apologize, but I just do not know what can be done in this situation.

One of my fellow seminarians had an interesting idea where the MP and KP ( Not under Filoret of course ) would co-exist in Ukraine in full communion with one another... I understand that would be a bit strange, but it would certainly beat the current situation.

[quote=p.a.koroluk][quote=Subdeacon Borislav]I for one believe that had it not been for the policies of Kremlin Ukraine would have had an autocephalous Church a very long time ago.[/quote]

Dearest in Christ, Subdeacon Borislav:

We seem to be in agreement on this point, and also in our desire that Ukraine have a unified autocephalous church in communion with world Orthdoxy. That appears to be more than just a little to me; if we do agree upon the underlying problem and the eventual goal, then all we are disagreeing about is how we want to get from here to there.


Yours in Christ,

(Rev.) Paul Koroluk
Priest, UOC-KP
[/quote]


We agree on what must be done Father.

We just disagree on how to do it.

Subdeacon Borislav,

I see your point, but what is an Orthodox Christian to make of the fact that, from an Orthodox perspective, even the Orthodox Church has divided many times (non-Chalcedonians, then Catholics, Old Believers, these groups, etc.).

Whether you look at it from a Catholic or Orthodox perspective, it's clear that groups have fallen away from the Church, although of course the Church of Christ itself is undivided.

Alexis

"Whether you look at it from a Catholic or Orthodox perspective, it's clear that groups have fallen away from the Church, although of course the Church of Christ itself is undivided."

I agree with this statement 100% and I think you answered your own question in exactly the same manner I would.

I can appreciate a well-written article, even if I disagree with the authour on other things.

However, on this subject, and related to 70x7's question above, I would be very grateful for any light you could shed on how the UOC-USA views its relationship with Archbishop Ihor's archdiocese. I know that this archdiocese considers itself to be under the protection of Metropolitan Constantine of the UOC-USA, and that they commemorate Metropolitan Constantine, not Metropolitan Mefodiy, as their primate. Would you be able to confirm whether or not the UOC-USA views this relationship in the same way? I also know that the UOC-USA hierarchs have reported meeting with Archbishop Ihor, and sometimes only him, whenever they travel to Ukraine.


Yours in Christ,

Priest Paul Koroluk, UOC-KP

Thank you, Subdeacon for the kind, thoughtful and timely response.

I remember quite fondly of being in the presence of the late Archbishop Vsevelod of blessed memory whose work on unity was respected.

The UOCofUSA and the Moscow Patriarchate representatives sit on the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America. That was not always the case. But maybe this can serve as a working example of cooperation and brotherly relations.

Ray

Dear Father Paul,

To be completely honest I have only heard good things about Bishop Ihor within the UOCUSA. He is well respected and considered a scholar and a patriot of Ukraine. Our Bishops have the utmost respect from him... At least that is my understanding. Having said that, we are officially not allowed to conselebrate with any group which is uncanonical. Perhaps that puts us in a peculiar position, yet it is what it is.

Having said that I must also say that the His Beatitude Met. Volodymir Sabodan also has the utmost respect of many in our Church. My parish priest, Fr Roman who knows him personally speaks about Met. Volodymir as of a holy man.

As of the current head of the KP it is rather clear that people in our Church have a rather negative opinion. This is partially due to his taking several of our parishes, but also because of his rabid opposition to Ukrainian autocephally that he displayed during his visit to the USA when he was still the Met. of Kyiv under MP. Finally his relationship with Vladyka Mstyslav was not a good one. Vladyka Mstyslav of blessed memory recognized the action the MP took when Filoret was defrocked.