www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The UGCC and the MP

My purpose in posting this topic is not to stir up animosity. I'm trying to understand the Ukrainian yearning for independence, both political and religious--from domination by an outside entity and wishing to be treated as an equal among the nations and among the Churches.

Read this as the analysis of one who is trying to understand and be sympathetic. I've been thinking about this for a long time as I have read many, many threads here and I think it has finally "jelled" in my mind. I want to run it by the members here for charitable criticism. I sent this to a member for his criticism and thought I'd get a wider selection of your thoughts to clarify this whole history and present reality for myself.
________________________________________
It seems to me that the MP gets so apoplectic about the UGCC because it cannot control it. Beyond that there is something deeper. You see, both spring from the same common source--the Kyvan Church and the Baptism of Rus. Once the Metropolitan of that city went back into communion with the See of Rome and became the UGCC. This Church has a valid and legitimate historical claim to being the successor to that historic Kyvan Church. The MP claim is that the Metropolitan moved his see to Muscovy, but retained the title and historic claim. This last is their historic claim.

And the hard fact is that both claims are true and valid, though springing from different points on the time line of history.

Moscow can't stand the fact that an independent Ukrainian claim to being the successor to the Kyvan Church stands out there. It threatens its historic claim to being the sole successor. The Muscovites have had the Metropolitan of Kiev crown the Patriarch of Moscow as part of their tradition to demonstrate this historic link.

It seems to me that the MP can marginalize anyone else in Ukraine by Orthodox standards by simply calling them uncanonical. But somehow they have never been able to come right out and accuse Rome of being that way. They can call Rome schismatic and heretical but somehow--deep down--they still recognize that the first see of Christendom still has some historic claims nonetheless, even if on the conscious level they won't admit it.

That's why, it seems to me, that they MP gets so worked up about the UGCC. Somehow if Rome proclaimed a patriarchate it would make their own claim less convincing to people on the ground. Beyond that, they certainly know about the yearning of the Ukrainian people for independence from the Russian yoke, both spiritual and political. Rome has a legitimacy that they recognize, even partially, or they wouldn't spend so much time making so much noise. If they didn't think this way--deep down in their guts, they'd simply ignore the UGCC as they do the two other Ukrainian Orthodox groups.

In Christ Who calls me to be your brother,

BOB

Actually Theophan brings some good insights to this issue. I would strongly suggest that you read it carefully over, before making any replies.

Also I repeat his admonition for posts to be done in charity.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

It has seemed to me that when Communism fell, there were some in the Russian Church leadership who wanted to re-establish an imperial church. I hope that is not the attitude of the current leaders, because I don't see it as being a good thing for the future of the church. I have wondered if the church had been seen as more aligned with the people instead of the aristocracy, if it might have fared better under Communism. These are all "what ifs" and who can really know how things might be different. As for the Russians and Ukrainians, how long has it been since they actually did get along with each other? Centuries, perhaps?

The State Church in the Russian Empire was not all that firmly aligned with the aristocracy for about a century and a half before the Revolution - the aristocracy had wandered off into freemasonry, occultism and other varieties of ungodliness, but the ordinary Russian faithful remained closely attached to the Church.

Just after the Revolution there was a marvelous and joyful return of some leading intellectuals to Orthodox Faith and practice. Moreover, the survival of Russian Orthodoxy in the face of the persecutions and government-sponsored schisms of the nineteen-twenties and nineteen-thirties is an eloquent witness to the strength of the Church in the hearts and souls of the people.

Incognitus

Part of the factors that have lead me to this analysis stem from the more fluid situation which I see in the pre-schism time when the holy saints Cyril and Methodius were evangelizing. They were sent from their patriarch in Constantinople to that area. When they ran into problems with the German missionaries in the same territory, they had no problem seeking help from the Pope of Rome. I suspect that when the bishops of that area in subsequent centuries sought to shift their focus from one patriarchate to another they saw it in this same way: not as something that was or ought to be seen as extraordinary.

Time and the fallout of the schism, with each new additional problem that lead to it, have hardened our view and made our vision short-sighted. Maybe where I am going with this is that we should see each other in that earlier light and as the Vatican Council called us back to. Bishops with Apostolic Orders and their particular local church--eparchy--are to be seen as brothers in the Faith. We need to look to the day when a Latin bishop working in Russia sits on the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church together with Old Believer bishops, all working for the common building up of the faithful in that territory. And the same needs to be our vision for other parts of the Lord's Vineyard.

We need to see the Ukraine as a place where the tides of different kingdoms flowed over the land and the people and the native Church, causing lots of conflicting views of what ought to be and which patriarchal center they should be aligned with. Ultimately we should all be comfortable with looking for help to every center, but that will only come in the Lord's good time.

In Christ,
BOB

The MP has an agenda.It yearns for the power it excercised under the Tsars and even under Stalin .It officialy denies this, but. Actions speak louder than words.Their are Orthodox priests in the Duma,they sit as advisors in the ministrys, and they have liasons with extremist nationalist political groups in the country.For a while they were even warming to the idea of restoring the Romanov's,but. The two recognised potential candidates to the Russian Throne.Are believers in democracy and western ideas of Human rights.Which is not quite what the MP was hopeing for.
The Russian Orthodox church wants to be the only christian church in Russia and all of the old Soviet Empire.Crazy it might sound ,but true. They even oppose the presance of other Orthodox churches, as the Romanians and ROCOR's have learned.So you can imagine their opinion of Catholics especialy Eastern Catholics.

Dear JOHNYJ,

I do not know where you may get your information from, but it is nothing that resembles reality. Under Stalin, the church was almost completely destroyed. All of the monasteries were closed, and only three theological schools were allowed to function, and that after a number of years being closed. In 1943, when the Patriarch was allowed to be elected, less than 20 surviving bishops could be found, half being brought from a gulag. I do not view that as power, but a church that was barely alive.

Like all religion,the Russian Orthodox did not fare much better than others, which by the current constitution of the Russian State in one of several official churches. Also as far as ROCOR, I believe they are just short of healing their schism after 80 years.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Moderator

Dear JohnyJ,

This post definitely amused me. Please explain to me how Moscow insists on controlling every Orthodox Church, and yet was willing to give the Metropolia autocephaly when even the Ecumenical Patriarchate refused to do so?

As to ROCOR, it does not now enter into the borders of Russia, as that last "OR" symbolizes, althought the MP is working to restore communion with them. However, they are not, at present, part of the Church, nor do they have churches in Russia to fall under the geographic "jurisdiction" of those priests that run the Russian government. *OK...I think there may have at one point been one or two that violated their OWN rules to try to establish parishes in Russia that were not recognized.

As to the last of the Romanovs...surely you jest about this. None has been offered a throne.

As to the Romanians, I can't even think what it is you are talking about. Please provide a link or two, and we can discuss this.

Gaudior, who really wonders why you would choose to make up a bunch of foolishness that has no basis in fact when the MP provides so much REAL cause for dislike among Eastern Catholics. :rolleyes:

Dear JohnyJ,

You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I would ask you to kindly state that they are your opinions and/or theories.

While I or others may not completely disagree with some of what you say, I will remind you to try to express yourself with a little more charity on this board, as the written word is sometimes a difficult way to express oneself.

Thank you!

In Christ,
Alice, Moderator

Dear JohnnyJ you said:

"The MP has an agenda.It yearns for the power it excercised under the Tsars and even under Stalin .It officialy denies this, but. Actions speak louder than words.Their are Orthodox priests in the Duma,they sit as advisors in the ministrys, and they have liasons with extremist nationalist political groups in the country.For a while they were even warming to the idea of restoring the Romanov's,but. The two recognised potential candidates to the Russian Throne.Are believers in democracy and western ideas of Human rights.Which is not quite what the MP was hopeing for.
The Russian Orthodox church wants to be the only christian church in Russia and all of the old Soviet Empire.Crazy it might sound ,but true. They even oppose the presance of other Orthodox churches, as the Romanians and ROCOR's have learned.So you can imagine their opinion of Catholics especialy Eastern Catholics."

I say:

What you say is probably true. Yet we must learn to understand how others see things. The Russian Church see's the immoral paganism of the West, as well as our consumerism as the evil that has now penetrated their soil.

As far as other Churches go, we have to remember that they really do not want to be like us, nor have our values imposed on them. To them our ideals of religious freedom means allowing the different denominations to 'proslytise'.

The Russians find it insulting because to them it means that their Orthodox faith is unchristian...and believe me, some of these religions come right out and tell them that. To them the worship of icons is idolitry.

As for the Catholics, I believe many Catholics have misconstrued the miracles at Fatima believing that they meant that Russia will go under the Pope.

I can't help but feel that this 'us against you' mentality of the cold war, is alive and well in this country, and Russia certainly feels it.

Zenovia

Dear Bob you said:

" We need to look to the day when a Latin bishop working in Russia sits on the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church together with Old Believer bishops, all working for the common building up of the faithful in that territory. And the same needs to be our vision for other parts of the Lord's Vineyard."

I say:

Certainly the Holy Spirit speaks through you.

Zenovia

Dear Zenovia,

The WORSHIP of icons is most certainly idolatry. The VENERATION of icons is not.

Gaudior, who nonetheless understood perfectly what you meant

Zenovia a very thoughtful statement.Now too answer some questions The Metropolia was in North America.We are talking about inside Russia.
I wish to correct myself.I may have been misstaken about the Romanian Orthodox. The reference to the ROCOR was in reference to parishs of the ROC. In russia that attempted to join ROCOR befor the unity talks started.
Now as to the moderator's concerns. Talking about the ROC with charity .
Is it understandable that the ROC is suspicious. Of the entrance into Russia of other religions after the fall of communism,yes.Is it understandable that any hint of sheep stealing by other Apostolic churches would upset the ROC,yes.The point is what should the ROC have done to answer these concerns.Talking would have been good, showing proof of any sheep stealing would have been also good.
JPII went out of his way to be reasonable. What did it get him,nothing !
When Communism first fell Catholic charities entered Russia and helped Catholic and Russian Orthodox entities.Even Russian seminaries were helped.Than the hostility started and things changed.
Are there Catholic or pseudo Catholic groups that have missunderstood the story of Fatima,yes.Do they speak or represent the church,no.For some reason they seem to upset the ROC a lot.No one knows what policies The new pope will follow with the ROC.Will he be as extremly tolerant as JPII, who knows.Do all Catholics wish for better relations with the ROC, of course.It would serve both churches and enable them to do much good,together !

Dear JohnnyJ,

I tend to disagree with the ROC. I believe that Orthodox nations should allow religious freedom...and that includes Greece. I do so because even if denominations that are not Orthodox proslytize and some people convert, (especially young ones that do not go to church), the 'edifying' they will give the population as a whole will fill their own Churches in the end.

People never give up their heritage, and the Orthodox Church 'is' Russia's heritage. Every other Christian faith coming into Russia will only be a passing fancy...except maybe for the original Roman Catholics.

But try telling that to the Churches...both Russian and Greek. In the meantime, abortions, civil marriages, etc. abound...and knowing that, the Orthodox Church just blames the West and it's influence. So they react by keeping every other denomination at bay.

I guess it's a back and forth thing. Too bad they can't see how they are harming their own people...but they can't! Some day they will have to answer for it.

Zenovia