www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Russo-Orthodox official urges Vatican action on Ukraine dispute

This does not address the irregular creation of the Muscovite patriarchate which was done without any usual "canonical process". There was no "resident Synod" who elected the first Muscovite Patriarch. It was done by Boris Gudonov sequestering Patriarch Jeremias until he performed the "consecration". There was no Synod, no election. What was done afterwards by other Patriarchs was external and only to recognize the fait accompli .


St. Peter Mohyla did not recognize his Metropolia as being subject to Moscow. St. Peter's successor, Metropolitan Sylvester Kosiv, publically stated with the unanimous support of his hierarchy, his allegience to Constantinople, and not the Muscovite patriarch. Again, it was through political dissection and coercion that gradually forced parishes and territory under the Muscovite Patriarch.

Patriarch Gregory of Constantinople blessed the consecration of Hrihory (Bulharovych) as Metropolitan of Kyiv and Halych (1458). History has shown, as in the present time, that when the freedom to choose is given, the people themselves choose for a Kyivan Church free from Moscow.



This is a red herring; there was no "Major Archbishop" after the Union of Brest. This is a recent title. There was a Metropolitan of Kyiv and later a Metropolitan of L'viv that professed the Union, all of whom can claim lineage to the historical Metropolitanate of Kyivan Rus'. Did they have to occasionally move because of political difficulties? Of course. Maxim himself fled Kyiv to go to Vladimir.


When throwing around references to Avingnon or this or that Metropolitan going here or there one also has to acknowledge the "anti-Metropolitans" of Moscow Teodorit, Roman, Dionisy, Pimen, Grigory, etc. etc. all of whom also have successor hierarchal lineages.

Regarding Isidore, he would have been hard pressed (or likely killed) to have resisted the dual requests from Emperor John Paleologus and Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople to go to Moscow to receive the consecration. In any case it was Isidore who consecrated Hrihory (Bulharovych) as Metropolitan of Kyiv and Halych which was confirmed by Patriarch Gregory of Constantinople. Why would Isidore have done this? He clearly recognized the need to continue his lineage of an historical Kyivan Metropolia free from its assumption into a later-comer Muscovite metropolia/patriarchate.


Less dubious than any other sources, is collected from multiple sources, and not from a "religious" source. Actually the number of parishes is a less reliable number, since the government solely has the right to recognize the registry of parishes, and many are functioning that do not have formal registry. The numbers are likely higher now since the UOC-KP has obtained properties and registered more communities as parishes. While the CIA numbers may have some imprecision (as all such surveys do), it is clear that many are freely choosing to belong to a Kyivan Church free from Muscovite patriarchal control, whether that be UOC-KP, UAOC or UGCC.

In http://risu.org.ua/en/index/expert_thought/interview/43376 or in his meeting with Metropolitan Vladimir http://risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/confessional/interchurch_relations/43989/ or in other statement http://risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/catholics/ugcc/43038/
http://risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/confessional/interchurch_relations/42106/ from what I read I don't see any mention of alleged propensity for "union with the UOC-KP". A united Kyivan Church does not automatically correlate to "union with the UOC-KP".

For the first time in many years there was a formal presence at the elevation of Patriarch +Sviatoslav by a representative of the UOC-MP (+Ilarion) and I do not recall ever any formal congratulations from the UOC-MP on the enthronement of one of our hierarchs in recent history before that of Metropolitan Hilarion http://risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/confessional/41512/ I maintain my previous statement.

I saw this today

http://www.youtube.com/user/romereports#p/u/19/ONjmunBbx9I




Such false accusations will never heal the schism between East and West. Then the Russian's invite the Pope to their parish church less than a mile away from the Vatican.

Funny how you never here Roman Catholics complaining about churches on her patriarchal territory?

There's no doubt that the complaints of the Moscow Patriarchate about the UGCC are scurrilous and that it needs to repent of what happened in 1944.

However, the news piece by Rome Reports seems a bit sensationalistic and contradicts Vatican Radio. See this coverage of the same event here on the St. Elias blog:

http://sainteliaschurch.blogspot.com/2011/09/metropolitan-hilarion-meets-with-pope.html

Metropolitan Hilarion is quoted by Vatican Radio:


Vatican Radio also put up this interview with Metropolitan Hilarion:

http://212.77.9.15/audiomp3/00282106.MP3

The full video of the meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and Metropolitan Hilarion can be seen here:



In reading the "about us" [romereports.com] of Rome Reports, it is clear it is not an official news agency for the Catholic Church:


My opinion of them has sunk immeasurably after hearing this latest report.

I just sent this email to Rome Reports:


I realize there are many issues involved but it's clear this news piece by Rome Reports is bad journalism. If you agree with me, you can also contact them here. [romereports.com]

I think the Vatican Radio coverage of the meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and Metropolitan Hilarion is much more balanced and accurate:

http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=524758

Then there would have been no point to the Pope of Alexandria holding out in the beginning, would there? The Phanar (and the patriarchates and archbishoprics reduced to his suffragans under the Ottomans) had been holding out granting official recognition to the fait accompli of the autocephalous Church of All Rus' for 141 years. If they had a problem, they would have had no problem holding out longer.

For the sake of argument, let's say your recital of events with Boris Gudonov is acurate: if it brings apostolic succession to naught, few, if any sees, Rome not excepted, would be left standing.

Irregular? Ever read the history of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem? It became the fifth of the Pentarchy at Ephesus II, that Council Pope St. Leo called "the Robber Council," and that's only the tip of the iceberg.

And going further into detail would be besides the point: the real change in the Church of All Rus', i.e. autocephaly, occured with the consecration of Met. St. Jonas of Kiev and All Rus' at Moscow-which comports with the usual "canonical process"-not with the elevation of Met./Pat. St. Job over a century later. So it would have nothing to do with the quesiton at hand, except that if the actions of Boris Gudonov and Met. St. Jonas were void, that would include the cession of jurisdiciton of Kiev and Little Rus' (the canonical term of the time), and hence it would have remained with Moscow before 1686. So there is nothing to address in this matter at 1589.

Had there been, it would have been dealt with in 1723 when the Ecumenical Patriarch, with the support of the others, met in a Pan-Orthodox Synod to approve the barely canonical "Holy Governing Synod" statute for the internal governance of the Russian Church, said Synod composed by and composed of Kievans, who dominated the Church of All Rus' from St. Petersburg for generations, products of Met. St. Peter Movila's Academy, which provided the model for the new regime of the Church of All Rus'. The see of Kiev itself was widowed at the time of the promulgation of the Spiritual Regulations (the Constition of the Church under the Czars until their fall), but when filled, its Metropolitan Archbishop sat on the Holy Governing Synod of the All-Russian Church in St. Petersburg.

IOW, Kiev and All Ukraine, as far as the Orthodox have been concerned, by the unanimous witness of the canonical Orthodox episcopate from 1686 until 1917, formed part of the Church of All Rus' presided from Moscow and St. Petersburg, there being only a question of jurisdiction in West Ukraine. But that question is between Moscow/St. Petersburg and Karlovci (now translated and seated at Beograd) and Czernowitz (now translated back to Suceava, and under Bucharest). Not between Moscow/St. Petersburg and Kiev, Nowogródek, Vilnius or L'viv.

The UGCC disputes that, of course. Interestingly, Uzhhorod does not. But the UGCC's dispute hangs on differences in ecclesiology, not in episcopal lineages, with the Patriarchate of Moscow. Hence the reason why Orthodox (and not just "Russo-Orthodox" officials; many statements have been made out of Constantinople on the Vatican's actions in Ukraine) address this issue to the Vatican. From the Orthodox reading of the CCEO, that is the proper authority. Hence the OP.

I do believe I've already answered that
I thought so. In fact, isn't that the post your are now replying to? Anyway, the issue only comes up if Pat. Job wasn't a valid patriarch, and therefore his translating the Metropolitanate of Kiev and Little Rus' rendered void. Then Met. St. Peter would have been attached to Moscow, whether he recognized that or not. Since he held Pat. Job as a valid patriarch, with the competent authority with his Holy Synod as any autocephalous Church, the issue is moot.


Of course they would: the Patriarch of All Rus' had translated them to Constantinople. That being so, I'm intrigued of what you are refering to. I mean, such a statement of Metropolitan Volodymyr with the unanimous support of his hierarchy of "his allegience to" Moscow and not the Ecumenical Patriarch would make no sense, as it would be stating the obvious agreed to by all parties. In what context would Met. Sylvester have need to make such a statement? Was the Polish King asking?

Had the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth not betrayed the Cossaks by making void the Treaty of Hadich at the end of Met. Sylvester's tenure, the circumstances might have warrented things to remain that way, under Constantinople.

What I am referring to is the previous statement that


This is incorrect. After Isidore with the consecration of Hrihory Bulharovych there was precisely a Metropolitan of Kyiv in Kyiv, not in Moscow, that was blessed by the Patriarch of Constantinople to be the Metropolitan of Kyiv. There simply is not one "line" after Isidore to claim the ecclesial title of Kyiv and All Rus'. And as I mentioned there were anti-Metropolitans who also claimed the title around Moscow, Vladimir and Suzdal during that time. After Isidore the Metropolitan of Kyiv was restored to his geographical see as blessed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and not claiming it from many hundred miles away. According to ancient reckoning of St. Ignatius of Antioch, "Where the bishop is..."

and the bishop wasn't in Kiev, but in Moscow. I'm not sure Met. Gregory ever set foot in Kiev. Met. St. Jonah had already been enthroned as Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' in Moscow, where the see had been translated long before, and had been recognized and confirmed as such not only by the Grand Duke of Moscow, but the Grand Duke of Lithuania, his vassal (and relative) the local-and Orthodox-ruler of Kiev and the King of Poland (who, at the time was recognizing the font of unity in Pope Felix V and the council of Basel, not the deposed Pope Eugene and his council of Florence).

Isidore went to Moscow to be enthroned, and Gregory went off to seek reception there.

Technically, at the time the see of Kiev was translated to Vladimir (as the ecclesiastical documents say), but de facto secular and religious authority had transferred from Vladimir to Moscow for some time before.

Besides the legitimate Met. St. Jonah and the deposed Isidore-called "the Apostate" in his former jurisdiction-no one was "claim[ing] the ecclesial title of Kiev and All Rus'" in 1448

The Metropolitanate of Kiev was not "restored to his geographical see as blessed by the Patriarch of Constantinople" until Met. St. Peter Movila/Mohyla restored it in 1633, in opposition to the "Union of Brest."

Gregory was "blessed" by a deposed Patriarch of New Rome in Old Rome, hundreds of miles away from Brest, let alone Kiev. Much farther than Constantinople. Once in Ukraine, Met. Gregory sought (after being rebuffed by Moscow) the blessing of the EP in Constantinople, i.e. the one in New Rome, not the pretender in Old Rome-whose line only survived in the Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople, which Vatican II abolished.

It's a miracle that a fellow Orthodox poster is so into resurrection (of old topics) this week which is the west's Holy Week.

I don't really care about the historical context of Moscow's claims of Greater Rus, the three Rus or whatever. Nor do I really care what the Ukrainian Greek Catholics want to call their chief (local) hierarch.

It's the 21st century. If you want to be a Greek Catholic, great. If you want to be Russian Orthodox,great.

But the constant bickering over historical offenses and nationalism wrapped in piety (Ukrainians and Russians are equal opportunity offenders on that charge) benefits only one religion in Ukraine - the Protestant one or those who become "none of the above."

Well said my brother!

Many years,

Neil

I second the motion.
Well said indeed.

It is probably a good idea to just agree to disagree and move on.