Ugh. This "church" is definitley one to be wary of. From what I've seen on the Internet it appears that their clergy to faithful ratio is about 1:5. Their "metropolitan" of the USA looks barely old enough to drink legally in the US, much less have made it to the rank of bishop. They are also a bit difficult to keep track of as they keep chaning their name.

Overall, this 'election' is not a reason to rejoice. You can add this character to the list of alternative "Roman Pontiffs" around the globe.

ANATHEMA!!!

Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον η�άς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!

Dear Kobzar,

Judging from their site, has this group canonized Taras Shevchenko?

Alex

Alex, I thought the canonization of Shevchenko was done years ago...

Have they instituted Bandura veneration? That's the real question to me.

I've been doing that for years!

Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον η�άς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!

The faction headed by Patriarch Moisey is in schism from the mainline UAOC headed by Metropolitan Mefodi. Nor is he in communion with the US UAOC Eparchy headed by Metropolitan Michael

Metropolitans Michael and Stephan attend the Uniontown Otpust every year and seem very sincere and god-loving bishops.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Rilian,

No banduras, but when the Ukrainian Orthodox Church split from Moscow in 1921, they instituted the practice of serving panakhydas in honour of Shevchenko and before his portrait which was carried in procession.

Any Orthodox priest who wished to join the autocephalous movement at that time simply joined in one of those panakhydas to show his solidarity etc.

The issue of canonizing Shevchenko as an Orthodox saint came up numerous times in Ukrainian church history, as did the canonization of the Orthodox Hetmans Bohdan Khmelnitsky and Bayda Vyshnevetsky (for their defence of Orthodoxy).

The later Princes Constantine and Alexander Ostrozhky were great supporters of Orthodoxy against the Union, and when the issue of their possible canonization by the Orthodox Church came up, RC enemies came to the Kyiv Caves Lavra, had their bodies exhumed and burned them - believing the Orthodox Church would not canonize anyone without their extant relics.

The Georgian Orthodox Church canonized their "Shevchenko" in the person of St Ilia Gavgavadze who was shot by the Russian tsarist secret police in 1907.

I see nothing wrong with the canonization of Shevchenko as an Orthodox saint, I honour his memory at home as I would any saint.

And the bandura, far from being simply a cultural musical item, was used by wandering "kobzars" (like our Andrij here!) to play their songs to their oppressed people, to keep their hopes alive and their faith in God and in a better future alive.

Consider this an addendum to your Orthodox studies!

Alex

Fr Deacon,

would not the correct description be, "bishops whom God loves"?

Dear Fr Deacon John,

Doesn't that remain to be seen?

Alex

Fr. Deacon John wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Originally posted by Deacon Lance:

Metropolitans Michael and Stephan attend the Uniontown Otpust every year and seem very sincere and god-loving bishops.

Fr. Deacon Lance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fr Deacon,

would not the correct description be, "bishops whom God loves"? "


Dear Father John--

No. If these two bishops are Orthodox, they're "God-loving bishops!" Hard to get it straight, huh?

John K

HABEMUS anotherus SCHISMATICAS ! ! !

Amadeus

I guess I consider that phrase a bit presumptious. For all we know, God may not be able to stand some of the bishops.

I really think you need to have a little more empathy for Metropolitan Michael. Are you aware of the fact that his eminence has had to significantly curtail his time spent at the mall in order to fulfill his pastoral duties? Being a ruling hierarch is not a cakewalk my friend.

It definitely is! Now I feel better about my private veneration of St. Nikolai Gogol.

Dear AMM,

You can invoke anyone you wish - including Mykola Hohol, a great Ukrainian spiritual writer in his own rite and author of the explanatory "On the Divine Liturgy."

He overcame grave inner struggles to come to the point of presenting that spiritual gem!

Shevchenko was not only personally pious.

He defended his own people against the power structures of his day and in history.

And these included Rome and the Russian Orthodox Church.

Alex

Dear Alex,
Have you considered seeking spiritual links with the Cao Dai? They have a pantheon of saints which includes such luminaries as Victor Hugo.

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

Have YOU considered seeking links with a Ukrainian history society?

There are also a number of warrior saints in the Orthodox calendar that even Orthodox Christians have told me shouldn't be there. Not to mention certain Latin saints that are likewise controversial.

Shevchenko is ahead of all of these by a long shot! But then again, I grew up with Shevchenko, memorized his poems for recitation, did a paper on him for public presentation at the age of 15 and the like. I would think your experience of Shevchenko would be of a more disconnected, intellectual sort.

And he has been privately venerated and very highly by Ukies for a long time.

I doubt if he'll be canonized. But his courageous condemnation of oppressive regimes of his day, supported by both the Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox Churches, is something that has made him the national bard of the people.

Vox populi or something like that . . .

Alex

Friends,

Are metropolitans Michael and Stephen now officially recognized by Metropolitan Mefodiy in Ukraine and do they sit on the Synod of bishops of the UAOC, or are they not recognized but merely claim to be so, as I have seen UAOC websites from Ukraine saying they are not part of the UAOC.

Then I hear that these two bishops consecrated this Moisey fellow and sent him over to Ukraine and that he then broke with metropolitans Stephen and Michael and started his own church, ordaining new bishops for the USA.

All the while we have Patriarch Filaret and friends running their own patriarchate, and a Russian Metropolitan in Ukraine. So what's the story at least with metropolitans Stephen and Michael?

Anastasios

Question for all you Ukrainophiles: why does Patriarch Filaret wear the white head-covering-with-two-little-flaps-that-fall-on-his-shoulders thing, while Patriarch Lubomyr does not?

ISTM that this is generally a Slavic Eastern Christian thing; at least, I've never seen this type of headcovering on the heads of Mediterranean Orthodox leaders.

But since +Husar is Ukrainian and Slavic, why doesn't he wear this little jobbie?

Logos Teen

Dear Anastasios,

Since no branch of the UAOC is recognized as being canonical, I don't see the issue!

The issue you also raise is about the divisions.

In fact, Met. Vladimir Sabodan always categorically rejects that there are is more than one Orthodox Church in Ukraine or that there is a "UOC-MP." It is just the "UOC" and he is its Primate.

He refers to the others as "groups" or "organizations" repeatedly throughout interviews he gives to the press.

I don't know whether Met. Vladimir is an ethnic Ukrainian or not, but his Ukrainian is excellent and he is a respected Orthodox theologian and professor - even among the various UAOC groups who mostly had him as a prof at one time or another. He defends the UOC as the only Ukrainian canonical church and not as a Russian/Muscovite church at all.

The UOC-KP and the UAOC in western Ukrainian are now in unity talks, but this won't prevent small "UAOC" groups from declaring their own patriarchates and the like.

This is largely due to the Ukies' sense of individualism, brought on by middle class conditioning from the time of the Kozaks, as Russian historians also conclude. And also because the Ukies don't have the tradition of a single, unified nation under one secular leader, having been divided up as part of more than one empire.

Perhaps the Moscow Patriarchate could serve as a model of reunification efforts here. It is striving to bring back ROCOR and the Old Believers (and there is an Old Believer Patriarch and other divisions among them). And there are break-away Russian Orthodox "organizations."

But more than 25% of those saying they are "Ukrainian Orthodox" also say they don't belong to ANY Orthodox jurisdiction.

There is a real problem there and one that will take time to resolve.

What is certain, however, is that the Ukrainian Orthodox don't want the kind of Moscow-dominated church they have had, they want one that reflects their cultural identity and Kyivan Church heritage.

This is why Met. Vladimir and someone like "Patriarch Moisei" appeal to Ukrainian national sensibilities in competing for membership (and also for survival).

Whether a church is "canonical" or not matters not to the Ukrainian Orthodox, it would seem.

What matters is whether it is truly "Ukrainian" in identity and separate from Moscow.

And when all Ukies are together in what probably will be an uncanonical grouping - that is when Orthodoxy and the world will recognize them as canonical.

Alex

Dear Teen Logo,

Lubomyr Husar does not acknowledge himself as a patriarch - and he won't without Rome's O.K.

This is probably the reason.

Alex

Dear Alex:

I am just a little bit bothered by your statement that Cardinal Husar has not/does not "acknowledge" himself as Patriarch.

I think he did and he does. For if not, his election by the Holy Synod of the UGCC as Patriarch comes to naught, unless there is a retraction we do not know?

Further, the matter was submitted to Rome for consideration and is "pending."

In the meantime, Cardinal Husar is merely putting on hold his exercise of the authority and powers of a Patriarch until the formal approval by Rome of the elevation of the UGCC as a Patriarchate.

This is where the incendiary talks between the MP (and world Orthodoxy) and the Holy See came and come in.

Amado

To Amado,
It is of scant importance whether one acknowledges oneself to be a Patriarch - insane asyla are full of people who each acknowledges himself to be god, but does not thereby become divine!
A Major Archbishop, as Rome styles Patriarch Lubomyr, already has the authority and powers of a Patriarch, so one expects the Patriarch to exercise them (and he does in fact do so).

To Alex,
I have nothing whatever against Taras Shevchenko. I also have nothing against Victor Hugo.

Incognitus

Incognitus:

The difference between a Major Archbishop and a Patriarch matters to the UGCC's Holy Synod and to all Ukies I presume.

The bestowal of the title by the Holy Synod is a grand act on its part that needed/needs acknowledgement by the recipient. Cardinal Husar did acknowledge such bestowal as shown by our discussions here and as reported universally elsewhere.

Only, the exercise of a Patriarch's prerogatives was short circuited by the cold treatment by Rome and, of course, by the belligerence of world Orthodoxy orchestrated by the MP.

The Eastern Code does grant the semblance of patriarchal accoutrements to a Major Archbishop but, really, the title "Patriarch" carries more hierarchical dignity wherever one goes, if you ask me!

I should be the last one to care whether Cardinal Husar is a Patriarch or just a Major Archbishop. The wimpiness of the principals now, which Alex seems to convey, runs surprisingly foreign to the understandable, and appreciated, bravado of the Ukies when such a courageuos act of UGCC's Holy Synod was first made public.

It adds doubt to the UGCC's avowed steely spine against further degradation by Moscow (and by Rome)!

Amado

Those Muscovite Orthodox Church "leaders" can all go take a flying leap into the Volga.

We Ukrainian Catholics do indeed have a Patriarch - his name is Lubomyr Husar.

Mnohaya Lita Vladeko!!!!

Dear Amado,

First of all, I know Patriarch Lubomyr, have met him and am related to him by marriage.

I support him even if I didn't and wasn't.

He does NOT sign his name as "Patriarch." When he was here for the consecration of our new Eparch for Eastern Canada, he was not officially called "Patriarch" and did not call himself that.

I know because I was there for the consecration and the banquet and was introduced to him by my wife's cousin who is his niece.

His position is that as a Church in communion with Rome, he wants Rome to acknowledge the reality of the UGCC Patriarchate.

It is a perfectly reasonable position to take as Head of our Particular Church. It has meant that our Basilians and other Latinophrones support him in his quest.

But there is no doubt in the minds of, for example, our Eparch that he is NOT yet a Patriarch in the full meaning of that term precisely because he is not acknowledged as such by Rome.

The ball is in Rome's court. Everything that our church suffered was because of Rome.

Rome should at least have the decency to do the right thing here.

Or so we Ukies believe.

No wimpiness - just facing up to realities.

Rome is not off the hook here, nor should it be.

Alex

Dear Incognitus,

What I find offensive is your comparison of Shevchenko with Hugo.

On the religious plane, and some others, the two have precious little in common.

I remember visiting the basement of the former Church of St Genevieve in Paris which has been turned into a shrine for every French atheist thinker around. There is even a video about how the French revolutionaries and their successors tried to develop a "canonization" ceremony for their atheist and agnostic "worthies."

That heritage has nothing to do with what Shevchenko stood for all his life in defending his people against their enemies that were crushing them - and their enemies' churches.

If you do not know that, then you do not know Taras Shevchenko.

Alex

Hi

It would be of interest to you that some of this Ukrainian non-canonical Churches have started their own missions in Latin America (they even want it to be "western rite").

One of them is the Kyivan Patriarchate under Filaret whose Church establish a diocese formed by a few Milan Synod and other itinerant priests. Do you remember Bishop Yuri Yurchik (the one who made a public abjuration of heresy and was received by the Roman Church)? Well he incardinated them as clergy of his Donetsk Diocese (I wonder how P. Filaret keeps him there after the previous scandal).

Another "Ukrainian Church" also established a Diocese in Ecuador!

For those who haven't seen it yet, the UAOC-C's Midwest US Diocese now has it's own website [uaocmoisey.org] .

Kobzar,

Having checked the UAOC\'s synodal webpage [uaoc.org] for the first time in a while, I think you might be mistaken - looks to me as though their hierarch to faithful ratio these days may be more like 5:1

And if you look at the UAOC-C\'s synodal webpage [soborna.org] , they may have an even higher ratio .

Remie,

The UAOC have an Eparchy for Colombia & Venezuela[/b] [geocities.com] .

Quote

Originally posted by Mexican:
[b]Another "Ukrainian Church" also established a Diocese in Ecuador!

The UAOC-C claims to have an Ecuadorean Diocese, as well as several other Latin and South American jurisdictions (Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Guadalupe, and the Caribbean), at the very least.

Alex,

It seems to me that the lesson to be learned from all this is that, if you are Ukrainian and you can't find an Eastern Church with which you are comfortable, you aren't hardly trying

Many years,

Neil, amazed to find that there is finally a place, Ukraine no less, with more Patriarchs than there are of Antioch

Dear Neil,

Yes, perhaps one more patriarchate for the UGCC isn't such a good idea after all!

He may get lost in the crowd!

I believe, though, that God will guide things and we'll eventually have a single canonical Patriarchate of Kyiv for all Ukrainian Orthodox and Catholics.

Fr. Petro Bilaniuk, a theologian up here (+eternal memory) actually argued for a Ukrainian "Catholicosate" based on the Oriental Orthodox model who would have universal jurisdiction over all Ukies.

That got him into real hot water with our Latinophrones, I can tell you, who had tremendous trouble digesting the idea of a simple patriarchate!

Alex

Dear Incognitus,

I'm off to enjoy some of those indulgences you made mention of.

I apologise for my angry tone above.

Certainly, I don't think Shevchenko would ever be canonized a saint.

He does enjoy a tremendous civic cult among Ukies, as you know.

His statue now stands in the Kyivan Parliament where once that of Lenin stood.

That's a good thing, I would think!

Cheers,

Alex

a statue?
IS OUTRAGE!
a proper EC or Orthodox would set up an Icon, NOT a statue!
Much Love,
Jonn

My art teacher Dexter is casting a larger-than-life statue in bronze of Shevchenko for the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Syracuse (I think that's what he said). During one class, I had to sit to a wax casting of Shevchenko's head; pretty cool!

Dave

Hello

Yes that's right. Thanks for showing the site of this Colombian Church. The story is quite strange indeed.

http://www.geocities.com//irsocolombia/historia.html

They received incardination by an "Old Calendarist" Bishop named Alexandros Cariaga, and due to Alexandros' strong tides with Patriarch Filaret of Ukraine * they were received by Metropolitan Michael** in the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church!.

* First of all, aren't Filaret and the Old Calendarists like oil and water? It seems like that to me.

** Metropolitan Michael's Sobornopravna Church has nothing to do with Patriarch Filaret at all.

It is good that Latin America has become a fertile soil for Orthodoxy but it seems that these non-Canonical Churches receive anyone as an Orthodox priest without the propper investigation (were they validly ordained? where did they come from? what studies did they do?). They don't even know to that Church they belong to.

Filaret does have a strong connection with one of the Greek Old Calendarist . . . ah . . . ecclesial communities.

Dear Alex,
Do enjoy the indulgences!

Incognitus

Which one? The KP was in communion with the Milan Synod but:

a) The Milanese bishops broke communion with the KP when Filaret was made patriach in 1997 and
b) The Milan Synod is hardly representative of an Old Calendarist Synod. Their origins lie with the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians but they have drifted quite far away from these origins.

Anastasios

I said, oil and water. Patriarch Filaret seems to support all what the Old Calendarist Movement find repugnant, such as a politicaly based Ecumenism, phylestism-nationalism, etc.

By the way, hasn't the Milan Synod become too "eclectic" and inclusive by doing their own Ecumenism accepting people whose background is doubtful and who just wanted to be in communion with someone (people "ordained" by Old-Catholics, etc.) and engaging in liturgical speculation with "Western Rites".

These problems are now repeated by the groups now in communion with Filaret or any other Ukrainian jurisdiction such as these ones in Latin America. It seems that they accept anyone to the priesthood. This Colombian Bishop got his orders from a so-called "Independent Catholic Church" and I bet that most of his clergy have equaly dubious background and priestly formation.

The Roman Catholic Church itself does not recognize these sects (in America) to have valid orders. And can you imagine them being received in the Orthodox Church, without re-ordination?

It's very wrong.

Dear Mexican,

How so "phyletism-nationalism?"

Do you know what the heresy of phyletism is?

I don't think you do, friend.

The Ukrainians desire to have a Church that is "Ukrainian" and not "Russian."

If that makes them "phyletistic" then every Church of the East is guilty along the same lines.

But that is nonsense.

Every Eastern Church is a "national" Church as it embodies the national/local culture - as it should.

The Russian Church is very Russian. So is the Greek, irrespective of which calendar they follow.

The Old Calendarists I've met up here are quite nationalistic.

I wish we would stop with that propaganda!

Alex

This about the different Ukrainian jurisdictions is so complex.

There's a Bishop named Daniel de Jes�s (apparently ordained or consecrated by one of these "independent" Old-Cath Churches) who was primate of the "Inclusive Orthodox Church" (a vagant sect):

http://home.comcast.net/~pensil/deJesus.html

It seems that he's real Orthodox, but appears to be incardinated by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Metropolitan (now Patriarch) Moysey:

http://www.soborna.org/news_eng/news_141_05.htm
http://netministries.org/see/churches.exe/ch12473

However, he also appears as Bishop of the UOC Kyivan Pariarchate in Mexico:

www.ortodoxiahispanica.com/es/documentos/sinodo_doh.doc [ortodoxiahispanica.com]

What's going on here?