www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology canonisation of Metropolitan Andriy Sheptytsky

I was very interested to find, on talking to a dear priest friend that Metropolitan Stephan, primate of the UAOC of North and South America - and his Church - is supporting the canonisation of Metropolitan Andriy Sheptytsky as a labourer for the unity of the Ukrainian Churches. Is this open-ness typical of the Ukrainian Orthodox? There seems to be a good relationship between the UAOC and the Greek Catholic hierarchies.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Father:

This is an interesting question, and the answer seems to be that this relationship is an evolutionary one. The diaspora Ukrainians only came into Full Communion with SCOBA in the Nineties (1990 in Canada and '95-'96 in the USA, South America and Europe), so there was an isolation that in many ways was filled by excellent relations with the Greek Catholics. In the March Ukrainian Orthodox Word, Archbishop Antony gives adn account of his trip to Ukraine and his greeting by by the Autocephalist Ukrainians and teh Greek Catholics. Teh Autonomous Church (MP) was distant, even though ironically they are the only ones in Full Communion due to the EP, and there inherent problems with the Partiarchal group (Pat. Filaret is taking parishes and clergy in the USA from South Bound Brook, and he certainly is the "wild card" in the Ukrainian deck, and here the Catholics must be careful here to not alienate Orthodoxy all together in dealing with him).

In the USA, the Ukrainian theolgical students are educated by the Antiochian Patriarchate at the House of Studies in Ligonier, creating a great synergy and comradery. Through their SCOBA membership, the clergy particiapte in the local clergy associations and the faithful readily travel to OCA, Greek and Antiochian parishes, thus the isolation (at least in the diaspora) no longer exists. Therefore, when the Catholics deal with the Ukrainians, they are now dealing with mainstream Orthodoxy, and indeed SCOBA Orthodoxy as a whole. Thus, the evolutionary relationship based upon common ethnicity and culture, but not upon the need for companionship in isolation. A much more wholesome one, I'm sure.

Christ Is Risen!

But the avtokephalia (sobornopravna) is not in communion with SCOBA. Despite its canonical foundation through the Polish Orthodox Church and the Tomos of autonomy from Constantinople in the 1920's(?), the autocephaly seems to have been shelved by Constantinople in the wake of Ukrainians entering under the patriarchal omophor and the autocephalists remoulded as schismatics lacking canonicity. This is the way I understand it, but my understanding is only based on scant information and second hand knowledge.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Fr. Mark,

XB!

Is this the UAOC [uaoc.org] to which you refer?

Tony

Voistinnu voskrese!

Yes, Tony, these are the people I mean.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Fr Mark,

AFAIK like you state these are not part of SCOBA. They are to the best of my knowledge a very small, but interesting, group.

Tony

Yes, I think ther are very interesting. They seem to have a sensible moderate attitude to the faith and a good openess to other Ukrainian jurisdictions. I am very encouraged by the things I hear from a priest of this little group.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

XPICTOC BOCKPECE!

Dear Father Mark, both in the diaspora and in Ukraine the UAOC has a close and brotherly relationship with the UGCC. UGCC and UAOC priests worked closely together during the dark days of the Christian holocaust under Stalin.

Both Churches often have joint molebens and Panakhydas, such as to the victims of the 1930s Famine, etc. Both Churchs come to joint functions, episcopal consecrations, ordinations, etc. of the other.

Bishop Vsevelod of Scopelos in fact presented a relic of St. Nicholas to the UGCC with full procession from his Cathedral a few blocks away to the UGCC cathedral of St. Nicholas where he himself placed the relic for veneration.

The scruples related to "canonicity" that often tears apart the Orthodox world have never really plagued the relations between the UAOC and the UGCC. During Soviet times the mutual concern was for survival and support, not canonical hoodoo.

St. Andrey himself provided for the education of several UAOC clergy within Greek Catholic institutions and offered support to the UAOC during the dark days of the 1930s. It has been a unique historic relationship of cooperation between Orthodox and Greek Catholic churches during and after the intense Soviet persecutions.

And of specific interest to you, Father Mark, I have also heard that some Old Believer groups present in Galicia and Bukovina had approached the UAOC during the 1920s and 1930s for shelter under her omophorion, but the intense persecution of the UAOC hierarchy hampered that. Some Old Beleiver parishes also at the same time did come under the UGCC omophorion through the intercession of St. Lenid Federov to St. Andrey Sheptytsky.

I am fascinated by the fact that there were Old Believer groups in Galicia!

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

The UAOC SP. is really not a small group anymore they have over 50 parishes and parishes from the Antiochan church have joined them, they have no relationship with any Ukrainian churches here do to political issues,also I know several SCOBA parishes who are waiting to see what takes place in America with the SCOBA movement.Many have said that they will join the UAOCSP,in which many would have already but the problem is most all the SCOBA parishes are signed over to the jurisidiction they now belong to(Property).I would say they are equal to ROCA,in orther words not a play church at all.They also respect our church very much and are very kind to our clergy.They have bishops in western ukraine who are friends of our sister church and bishop.

BOICTIHHY BOCKPECE!

Yes but this UAOC SOBORNOPRAVNA is not the same jurisdiction as VSEVOLOD and AFAIK they are not in communion.

I find these posts interesting and encouraging.

One thing that I find strange is what might be styled 'the packaging' of certain aspects of the UAOC sobornopravna. I find shaven and trimmed bishops strange in an Orthodox milieu. Perhaps this is common in the US and Canada, but in Europe it is very strange. As a monk I find it odd that Orthodox bishops, as monks, do not keep monastic tradition regarding the body and appearance. I do not want to be an Old Believer pedant, but it makes me wonder about general attitudes to Holy Tradition.

Is the UAOC sobornopravna traditionalist, not in the sense of every woman in a namitka and all services in Slavonic, but in matters of faith and order?

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

I also had occasion to speak with another Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Bishop about the canonization of Met. Andrew Sheptytsky.

He was serious and actually got me working on preparing some background papers on the life of Met. Andrew for an eventual glorification . . .

But even if some of us don't like the UAOC, let us remember that Met. Andrew Sheptytsky was honoured by the Orthodox Church in Russia in Western Ukraine with panakhydas served in his memory until 1954 when the Moscow Patriarchate decided to shut down the practice and closed off Met. Andrew's rooms at the Metropolitanical Residence in Lviv.

At the "sobor" of 1946 (would any Orthodox Christian here care to defend its validity as "canonical?" If so, can other sobors held at communist gunpoint also be considered "valid?"), as I was saying, at that sobor, it was the soon-to-be glorified martyr, Fr. Gabriel Kostelnyk, who read a panegyric in honour of Met. Andrew Sheptytsky at the sobor's end, invoking him as a "true Orthodox Father who paved the way for the restoration of Orthodoxy in Galicia etc."

This occurred just moments before Fr. Kostelnyk walked outside St George's Cathedral and was fatally shot in the back by someone the soviet press claimed was a "fanatical Greek Catholic."

So the Moscow Patriarchate itself had earlier eyed the possible glorification of Met. Andrew as a way to solidify the "reunion" with Orthodoxy of the Uniates - something mentioned by Met. Ilarion Ohienko in his writings.

This is nothing new - Rome itself considered the canonization as a Catholic saint of the Orthodox St Job of Pochaiv. The Basilian Fathers wrote to Rome about it and received a positive reply. The process was closed after Pochaiv returned to the Orthodox - copies of the correspondence with Rome are in Met. Ohienko's "Holy Pochaivska Lavra."

As for the beards, the Autocephalous movement in Ukraine was against them, but did not forbid them.

The term 'katsap' was the term of opprobrium that referred to a bearded Russian Orthodox priest. The "batiushka" became a hated "persona non grata" among Ukrainian Orthodox, representative of Russification itself.

This is why the reaction against the beard. Even to this day, when we see a Ukrainian Catholic priest with a great beard, people say, "Look at that katsap!"

Sad, but true.

Alex

Dear Alex - I find the beard issue interesting, since it is an integral part of monasticism. It leads me to wonder how the autocephalists view monasticism and monastic tradition. Do they have any monastic life?

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

They do and their monks have beards.

I would grow a beard myself, but it is a ticklish issue with some . . .

Alex