www.byzcath.org
Posted By: ukrainiancatholic St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 04/26/02 09:05 PM
This is from the UGCC website concerning St. Sofia's Cathedral in Kyiv which is around 1,000 years old.........
____________________________________

Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC), reiterated the official position of the UGCC on the restitution of the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Kyiv. The statement was released on 17 April 2002.

After part 137 of the decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine �On Conditions of Restitution of Religious Buildings and Monuments of Architecture to Religious Organizations� was publicized on 14 February 2002, fierce debates arose between the Orthodox churches in Ukraine over the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Kyiv. The position of the UGCC on the issue was declared at the Metropolitan�s Synod on 3-4 January 2002 and stated in a letter to Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma sent on 11 January 2002. Cardinal Husar, however, found it necessary to reiterate the UGCC�s position, as it is often misinterpreted or distorted by the mass media.

An excerpt from the statement follows:

�The Cathedral of St. Sophia is a spiritual symbol of unity and a sacred place of special importance for the whole Ukrainian nation. It should be transferred to the patriarch of the Ukrainian Church when all Orthodox and Catholic faithful, whose roots reach back to the baptism of Volodymyr, return to the original unity of the very beginnings of Christianity in Ukraine, and when they have a single patriarch. Therefore, the bishops of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church believe that this sanctuary should remain the property of the Ukrainian government until that blessed moment.

�Taking into consideration the present circumstances, under which the Kyivan Church is divided into four denominations: the UOC [Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate], the UGCC [Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church], the UOC-KP [Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate] and the UAOC [Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church], the hierarchy of the UGCC sees two possible ways of solving the problem of returning St. Sophia�s Cathedral:
* 1. Allow the Cathedral of St. Sophia to be used for religious services by the above mentioned denominations � on an equal basis. It should, however, be pointed out that such use will every time call forth a significant resonance in society.
* 2. Refuse to transfer the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Kyiv to any of the denominations for permanent or temporary use for the time being, as long the ecclesial unity of the time of Volodymyr�s baptism has not been renewed in Ukraine.�


Source: press service of the UGCC
www.ugcc.org.ua/eng/ [ugcc.org.ua]
Posted By: durak Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 04/26/02 10:52 PM
Please, how has the Cathedral been used in the past decade?
Thank you.

[ 04-26-2002: Message edited by: durak ]
Posted By: FAW Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 04/26/02 11:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by durak:
Please, how has the Cathedral been used in the past decade?
Thank you.

[ 04-26-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

It has been used for Divine Liturgy by the UOC/MP and I believe the UOC/KP but not by the UGCC nor UAOC. They also record Sacral music there.

May I state, that although some people are critical to Papa Lybomyr for not being as assertive as Patriarch Josef with regards to the question of "patriarch" and "jurisdiction" (and I do understand this complaint), I have never disagreed with one public statement the man has made. He shows real leadership with his written statements.

To name a few:
* His condemnation of the vandalism on the Kyivan synogogue.
* His honesty and truth with regards to ecumenism between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

We are blessed to have such a leader, who in my humble opinion, places truth before all else.

ALity
The Cathedral is used liturgically for the most important of functions. It was used by the Ukrainian Autocepholous Orthodox Church for the instillation of Patriarch Mstyslav I (he was Metropolitan in the States) as Patriarch of All Rus'- Ukraine in August of 1990. We actually have tape of the Liturgy and to see a Divine Liturgy served from there is impressive. It is a musuem now and we went to it last July. It is quite an awesome expierence especially if you know the history.

What Patriarch Lubomyr, UGCC, is proposing it to be used at the main seat of the one Kyivan Orthodox Church but in Cmmunion with Rome, ALity help me out here if I am wrong.
-ukrainiancatholic
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 04/27/02 04:15 AM
[* 1. Allow the Cathedral of St. Sophia to be used for religious services by the above mentioned denominations � on an equal basis. It should, however, be pointed out that such use will every time call forth a significant resonance in society.
* 2. Refuse to transfer the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Kyiv to any of the denominations for permanent or temporary use for the time being, as long the ecclesial unity of the time of Volodymyr�s baptism has not been renewed in Ukraine.� ]

Guess I better vent before Holy Week starts. So the head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church would rather see the most Holy and MOTHER CHURCH OF UKRAINIAN ORTHODOXY remain a museum until he can either share it with the Orthodox (including two non canonical Orthodox jurisdictions) or that time when unity is achieved between Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics (which really means when the Ukrainian Orthodox join the Unia)!
Maybe the Orthodox Bishop who oversees the Orthodox parishes in Italy should petition the Italian government to grant us permission to share St Peters with both Roman Catholics, non canonical Catholics like those under the French Bishop who have been separated from canonical Roman Catholicism. And if that cannot be achieved turn it into a museum until that time when the Roman Catholic Church returns to the Orthodox Catholic Church.
Whats next. The Kievian caves?

OrthoMan
Posted By: FAW Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 04/27/02 04:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by OrthoMan:
[* 1. Allow the Cathedral of St. Sophia to be used for religious services by the above mentioned denominations … on an equal basis. It should, however, be pointed out that such use will every time call forth a significant resonance in society.
* 2. Refuse to transfer the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Kyiv to any of the denominations for permanent or temporary use for the time being, as long the ecclesial unity of the time of Volodymyr's baptism has not been renewed in Ukraine.” ]

Guess I better vent before Holy Week starts. So the head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church would rather see the most Holy and MOTHER CHURCH OF UKRAINIAN ORTHODOXY remain a museum until he can either share it with the Orthodox (including two non canonical Orthodox jurisdictions) or that time when unity is achieved between Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics (which really means when the Ukrainian Orthodox join the Unia)!
[edit: ALity]
Maybe the Orthodox Bishop who oversees the Orthodox parishes in Italy should petition the Italian government to grant us permission to share St Peters with both Roman Catholics, non canonical Catholics like those under the French Bishop who have been separated from canonical Roman Catholicism. And if that cannot be achieved turn it into a museum until that time when the Roman Catholic Church returns to the Orthodox Catholic Church.
Whats next. The Kievian caves?

OrthoMan

I guess since I already celebrated Pascha, I can vent back . . . wink

The Cathedral of Saint Sophia is a Mother Church for both Ukrainian Orthodox and Greek Catholic.

Historical fact: The Hierarchy of the Ruthenian Orthodox Church made a decision that was very bold, effected the rest of the Orthodox and Catholic world, and perhaps could be seen as an innovative step in solving many problems facing their Church and faithful: They REUNITED with the Roman Church. St. Sophia is equally the UGCC's as much as it is the Autocephalus and Kyivan Patriarchate's Church. However, those churches trace their historical genesis to the formation of a "shadow metropolitan" of Kyiv established by Constantinople to stop the Unia.
The legitimate metropolitan of Kyiv, and I have read this in Ukrainian press in Kyiv, is the current head of the UGCC. Obviously, this is not a universal opinion, but with the freeeom of Ukraine and the reemergence of Ukrainian Historical shcolarship, such theory's are coming forth.

St. Sophia can only be considered rightfully the property of the Russian Orthodox Church if you support Muscovy's(Russia) colonial subjugation of Ukraine and the Tsar's permission to have the Moscow Patriarchate consume and liquidate the Church which gave birth to her: Kyiv and the Rus'-Ukrainian faithful.

I think that Patriarch Lybomyr is not trying to act subversively, and "steal sheep". In fact, the UGCC may reunite with the Orthodox. Or maybe they will reunite with the Kyivan Orthodox Patriarch and let Constantinople and Rome continue to fight while their "northern sister" lives in hamrony and unity.

I think that I have gotten a bit side tracked . . . Orthoman, some of your staements I respectfully disagree with. Historically, St. Sophia has many potential "rightful owners" and the Ukrainian Government needs to either allow all traditional Ukrainian Churches equal access, which could be a disaster, especially with the alien Russian Orthodox Church, or it needs to be her steward until the Ukrainian Church works something out. And that solution is not necessarilly Ukrainian Orthodox joining the Unia. But I might add, since I am so long winded wink , that if Constantinople and the rest of world Orthodoxy will be so blind as to disregard Imperialist Russia's oppression of the Ukrainian Church and not grant canonical autocephalous and patriarchal status to the largest continental european Orthodox nation, then I would not be suprised at all to see a Ukrainian Catholic nation, with a Patriarch and sacramental communion with Rome. eek


Have a blessed Lent
and
Christ is Risen
(take your pick)

ALity
Posted By: RichC Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 04/27/02 04:21 PM
OrthoMan,

The Society of St. Pius X ("those under the French Bishop" to whom you refer) has little interest in taking over St. Peter's Basilica. After all, they don't believe that they are in schism from the Pope.

St. Sophia's in Kyiv, on the other hand, is not the center of a worldwide communion but is the national symbol of Ukrainian Christianity.
And none of these other organizations/Churches you mention is a "national Church" whereas the UOC-MP, UOC-KP, and UGCC certainly present themselves as such. So when in Ukraine...
Posted By: FAW Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 04/27/02 04:29 PM
Quote
Originally posted by ukrainiancatholic:


What Patriarch Lubomyr, UGCC, is proposing it to be used at the main seat of the one Kyivan Orthodox Church but in Cmmunion with Rome, ALity help me out here if I am wrong.
-ukrainiancatholic

I don't know about that . . . ukrainiancatholic, I think that the goal is to have a united Ukrainian Church, period! One church in Ukraine to serve the nation. Perhaps it will follow the model of the Melkite Catholic and Antiochian Orthodox reunification. Although, I still am unclear as to what that entails as the details are not readily available, or I have not read them. Any word from Melkites, or Antiochian's on this forum would be welcome.

ALity
OrthoMan,
Even though its a museum, there were people who were praying, I especially one babushka who was praying in front of each icon on the iconostasis.

At least its a religious mesuem not an anti-religious museum that was so common in places of Soviet state art.
-ukrainiancatholic

"If it be God's will and the desire of the Ukrainian people, place my coffin in the catacombs of the renewed Cathedral of St. Sofia. In the catacombs of the Kyivan prison I was tortured for many years when I lived; in the catacombsof the renewed Cathedral of St. Sofia in Kyiv I would rest, being dead according to the flesh!"
-Testament of Patriarch Joesph I
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 04/27/02 07:22 PM
[St. Sophia's in Kyiv, on the other hand, is not the center of a worldwide communion but is the national symbol of Ukrainian Christianity.]

Which is based neither on Roman Catholicism nor Uniatism but Orthodox theology, spirituality, prayer, and ethos.

[Even though its a museum, there were people who were praying, I especially one babushka who was praying in front of each icon on the iconostasis.]

I was very well aware of that fact when I visited this Holy Orthodox shrine in 1988. At which time, while we were on the balconey we were asked by our Ukrainian tour guides to sing in both slavonic and english -

'Oh Lord save thy people and bless thine inheritance. Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries. And by virtue of they Cross perserve thy habitation'.

Since I will be going to Confession tonight after Vespers I will be signing off the Forum for the duration of Holy Week. To those who are still in the Lenten period, prepare yourselves for the greatest of Christian Feasts by prayer and fasting. To those who have already Feasted continue on your journey to prepare yourself to one day meet he who rose from the dead.

OrthoMan
OrthoMan, are you Ukrainian Orthodox?
Dear Friends,

Major Archbishop Lubomyr Husar's statement (he does not call himself "Patriarch") that St Sophia should remain in the keeping of the Ukrainian government shows his heart is in the right place, even if his head isn't.

He wants to see a united Kyivan Church that is in communion with Rome. He has every right to have that vision.

And it is true that St Sophia is also part of the patrimony of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, since it was the Orthodox Metropolitan of Kyiv at the time who signed the Union of Brest-Litovsk.

But St Sophia belongs to the Orthodox, period.

I would argue that it belongs to the Kyivan Patriarchate and Autocephalous Church who will eventually unite with the KP.

But that is an issue for the Ukrainian Orthodox to work out and then for Orthodoxy to accept.

Eastern Catholics have no more claim to St Sophia than we do to the Pochayiv Lavra or other Orthodox Shrines. We should all learn from the example of St Andrew Sheptytsky who left the Orthodox alone, especially the Pochayiv Lavra after years of being in the control of the Basilians.

Certainly, Eastern Catholics could/should have the right to serve in the Cathedral, as should the Moscow Patriarchate and others too.

But I think we do a disservice to Ukrainian Orthodox and Orthodox in general by promoting the continued possession of such Shrines by people (ie. the Ukrainian government) who, generally, have no interest in religion one way or another, except in terms of its political impact and use.

If Major Archbishop Lubomyr Husar doesn't recognize the canonicty of the KP or has some other issue, then he should at least remain silent on the matter, as Sheptytsky did on the issue of the Pochayiv Lavra's return to Eastern Catholic control.

Recently, our former Apostolic Administrator wanted to make an ecumenical gesture and gave back the Okhtyrska Icon of the Mother of God to Kharkiv - and that is where it is today, in a museum.

To promote the continuation of keeping museums in this way is unworthy of any Ukrainian Catholic.

In addition, there is absolutely NO NEED to include the Russian (Kiev) in brackets after the now official KYIV as the capital of Ukraine.

I have yet to see KYIV following KIEV anywhere.

So I would ask UC to consider removing it - please.

As for our leader, fortunately, being a Patriarch doesn't make one infallible. smile

Alex

[ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]
Alex,
The only reason I put the Russian Kiev down because that is how most people know it as, and if I were to have just put Kyiv, most people probably wouldn't know what I was talking about. I am probably the most nationalistic of Ukies on this forum so normaly I would put ANYTHING Russian down but I did only as a refernce for others. There some very russified Ukrainians on this forum and they use Russian terms and support Russian causes and I get more upset about that. I don't know how to take off the Kiev in () but if I did, I glady would take it off. It is Russian as you said and I and usually the last one top use anything or support anything Russian.
-ukrainiancatholic
Dear UC,

As I see I've struck a guilty nerve, you are most certainly Ukrainian!!

No problem, but I think most know what we are talking about when we say "Kyiv."

It is like the British tour bus who had flags denoting languages spoken by their tour guides.

They had the British Union Jack for "English."

When I asked them about the Canadians and Americans, the answer was, "They know what the English flag looks like . . ."

Slava Ukrayini!

Alex
Alex wrote: "Slava Ukrayini!"

Alex,
You forgot Slava Bandurystovi biggrin Remember that there is a Bandura painted in one of the 1,000 year old frescos in St. Sofia's Cathedral.

Z kobzarskym pryvitom,
-ukrainiancatholic
Posted By: Axios Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/02/02 01:49 AM
Orthoman represents one Orthodox Christian's opinion, I'll give another. Given that the reality exists of a property dispute, some sort of arrangement like the UGCC Archbishop stated is certainly worthy of consideration.

Axios
Posted By: Daniil Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/02/02 02:43 PM
Orthoman: Have a blessed Pascha. I guess I will also have to go to confession after this post.
"Ehda slavnii uchenyki..."

This subject and its responses are really getting on my nerves, especially because all of you have such differing views.
Firstly, St. Sophia was in communion with Rome, as Alex stated, unoficially until 1452 (or something like that) and then from 1596 to the early 1600s. The Orthodox Cathedral of the city was St. Michael of the Golden Domes (down the street).

Orthoman: unity is achieved between Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics (which really means when the Ukrainian Orthodox join the Unia)!
Pardon me, but it looks like it will be the other way around.

Maybe the Orthodox Bishop who oversees the Orthodox parishes in Italy should petition the Italian government to grant us permission to share St Peters
Sure, when THE Orthodox Bishop in Italy...etc. When all of the Orthodox are in communion with each other, let me know.
You should watch the use of this argument, especially with the new situation in Russia. If Catholics began to take this view, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York could tell Metropolitan Laurus, the Greek Orthodox Archbishop, the Bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate, and all other non-Catholic bishops to get out of the city, because the majority of Christians in that city are Catholic. Then, they could bribe the government to expel the Orthodox bishops of that city and rip up their visas. Thank God we live in free countries and things are not like that, nor wil they ever be.

I think that Patriarch Lubomyr's second proposal is ideal. It gives us a goal to strive for: unity -- to make it to the day when Christ's words will be fulfilled, "so that all may be one." (John xvii 21) We (well, us without telescopes, in the words of Fr. Taft) will be hearing those words tonight in one of the first Passion Gospels, so when you hear them, think about them.

Maybe your attitude, Alex, of appeasement may work. I guess the only way to get something you really want is to sacrifice for it. Unity -- we will achieve it.

Daniil
Posted By: Amadeus Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/02/02 03:32 PM
Dear Orthoman:

Since your request for the Orthodox in Italy to share St. Peter's Basilica is a way bit too much, I hope this will suffice in the meantime while we work harder for our "eventual" unity:

ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome

Spanish Archdiocese Cedes a Church to Russian Orthodox

MADRID, Spain, APRIL 24, 2002 (Zenit.org).- Pamplona�s archbishop has given a church to the Russian Orthodox to serve the growing numbers of immigrants from the former Soviet republics.

Archbishop Fernando Sebastian and the Russian Orthodox Archdiocese in Western Europe signed an agreement for the free cession of the church in Baranain, a town in the province of Navarre, in northern Spain.

The purpose of the agreement is to "ensure the offices of the Russian Orthodox rite for the numerous faithful who reside in this region," the Spanish Catholic bishops� conference reported.

The text of the agreement establishes a five-year period during which annual meetings for exchange of information will be held between both institutions.

During this period, the Orthodox community will be responsible for the building�s maintenance, as well as the installation of elements necessary for the practice of Orthodox worship.


AmdG
I think maybe letting each paticular church use St. Sofia's for different fuctions i.e consecration of a bishop, ordinations, etc. could be something actually workable. Since its the 'home plate' for all Ukrainian Eastern Christians, letting the UGCC, the UOC-KP, and the UAOC share it, the Temple would be a place of worship again, not a museum. This I believe is a good option until unity WILL be reached. Any takers? Suggestions? Dissagreements?

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: ukrainiancatholic ]
Posted By: jporthodox Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/02/02 05:06 PM
This is my first entry into this discussion. I would like to thank the Catholic Church for providing what appears to be an excellent forum for discussion. Having said that, a couple of things:

1. The agressive nature of the Catholic Church ("Greek" or Latin) is sad. The Orthodox do not have that much in this world. The Catholics have Rome, let us have our churches in the East.

2. Please, no more missionaires to convert Orthodox. The Pope should respect the East and the bishops who are charged to lead those areas. Real respect for Russia and the Ukraine would lead the Pope and his followers to stay out and lend any support they could for the Orthodox to reclaim their souls.
Posted By: Dmitri Rostovski Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/02/02 06:04 PM
I have to agree with JPOrthodox. Give it to the Orthodox. The history can be justified on both sides over posession so let those who have less have it. Of course, then the question arises as to which Orthodox jursidiction should be its keeper. Personally, I would push for UOC-MP. That seem to be more historically accurate as I see it. But then, there is the historical question again..

Dmitri
Dmitri,
The UOC-MP on paper are "Ukrainian Orthodox" but really they are Russian Orthodox. Key word is Russian. Where is St. Sofia's? Ukraine. Metropolitan Vladimir, head of the UOC-MP is second in authority to Moscow and reports directly to the Patriarch of Moscow, therefore he is high in the Russian Orthodox Church.

St. Sofia's is spiritually and culturally the center of Ukraine and all Ukrainians. Moscow have their own important churches like Christ the Savior and the St. Basil's church and all the others. St. Sofia rightly belongs to the Ukrainian jurisdictions be it Orthodox or Greek Catholic. God willing it will be the center of the united Kyivan Church. That is the purpose of this thread was to shed eccummenical light amoungst the Ukrainian Churches, not Moscow controlled churches.

jporthodox, just for future reference, Ukraine is addressed as Ukraine, no "the Ukraine."

Is St. Sofia's rightfully the Ukrainian Orthodox's as of now in my opinion? Yes, but I think it should be shared by all 3 Ukrainian churches as I stated up above in an earlier response. Sorry to come on so strong, but St. Sofia's should not be a Moscow Patriarchal temple.
-ukrainiancatholic

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: ukrainiancatholic ]
Posted By: Dmitri Rostovski Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/02/02 08:50 PM
Although I understand your point, I think nationalism does more harm than good to Christianity. As a fellow Slav, I can appreciate the idea of tribal loyality. However, perhaps we should take example from our middle-eastern brothers. The Antiochean Chruch, for instance, crosses many ethnic peoples under one omophorion. Why don't we? Then, of course, you add in the fact that there are three (or four) different "national" churches in the same country. No wonder unity seems so distant. We don't even get along with ourselves. Just my thoughts...

Dmitri
Posted By: FAW Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/02/02 09:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Dmitri Rostovski:
Although I understand your point, I think nationalism does more harm than good to Christianity. As a fellow Slav, I can appreciate the idea of tribal loyality. However, perhaps we should take example from our middle-eastern brothers. The Antiochean Chruch, for instance, crosses many ethnic peoples under one omophorion. Why don't we? Then, of course, you add in the fact that there are three (or four) different "national" churches in the same country. No wonder unity seems so distant. We don't even get along with ourselves. Just my thoughts...

Dmitri

I think that one united Slav church would be a great thing. However, as soon as the Moscow Patriarchate is involved, there are many historical problems.

First the Church of Muscovy, later the Russian Orthodox Church, has a history of liquidation, subjugation, and oppression of the South Slavs of Ukraine. It rubs us Ukrainians and those of Ukrainian descent (who know their history) the wrong way when we look at how secular history has dealt us an unfair hand, especially since Kyiv is the Mother Church of Moscow, yet in Muscovite opinion, Kyiv should be subordinate to them. And it is secular history, not the Divine Providence. Muscovite's sacked Kyiv and ran off with precious icons and treasures in the 1300's, liquidated the Kyivan Church in 1646 and subjugated her under Moscow's authority. They destroyed St. Peter Mohyla's Liturgicons and Trebnyks. All the while the Southern Rusyns continued to identify themselves as different from the Musocvites. Are we all Rusyn's when it comes down to it? Yes. But we cannot forget the brutal past treatment of what we now call "Ukrainians", by those we now call "Russians".

I would be in favor of a united slavic Orthodox/Catholic Church under two conditions:

One: The Church will not become a tool for Russification, and to secure that:

Two: The patriarchate of Kyiv become the see of unity and leadership of this Slavic Church.

If this ain't acceptable to the russkies, well, they can just take their kiester's back up north and freeze in St. Basil's! And stay out of Saint Sophia's. It was only a Russian church as a result of military conquest!

ALity

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: Ality ]
Posted By: FAW Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/02/02 10:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Daniil:
Orthoman: [b]unity is achieved between Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics (which really means when the Ukrainian Orthodox join the Unia)!
Pardon me, but it looks like it will be the other way around.

Daniil[/b]

Daniil - I just wonder sometimes . . . why the UGCC does not return to Orthodoxy?

[I have heard that] The Roman Catholic Church has stated that "uniatism" was a mistake, so why does'nt the UGCC correct that "mistake", heal the deep cultural divisions that the Unia created in Ukraine, and work towards Christian unity from the other side?

Or better yet, since the UGCC is "sui juiris", why don't they make the decision to share communion with Rome and the Kyiv (Ukrainian Orthodox) and let Rome and Constantinople sit there and sqwawk and sqwabble for the next 150 years. Why is such a unilateral act unthinkable without it being the incentive of either Rome, or Constantinople? This question was brought up by the Kyivan Study Group in Ottawa and all I know of their conclusions was that is impossible?

Why? If it can be imagined, then it is possible.

ALity

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: Ality ]
Ality stated:
I just wonder sometimes . . . why the UGCC does not return to Orthodoxy?

Ality,
I think the majortiy of the UGCC members in Ukraine are very staunch Catholics and are very latinized and generally don't have warm feelings towards Orthodoxy in general so to get everyone to convert over would be a a big feat and not to mention a miracle.
-ukrainiancatholic

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: ukrainiancatholic ]
Posted By: FAW Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/02/02 10:44 PM
Yeah, that may be the truth. wink However, most of those latinized GC's are the older generation. Those youngin's comin' outta the LTA are another breed altogether.

But still, the political cirsumstance of 16th century Ruthenia (Ukraine) is not the same now. There are no Polish RC nobles in control of an occupied Ruthenia any more.

ALity
Dear Ality and UC,

The issue of unity between the UGCC and the Orthodox Churches is precisely one reason why St Sophia should be in good Ukrainian Orthodox hands now.

It has been in atheistic government hands for too long.

God forgive me, but I believe our Major Archbishop has made a mistake in this.

As for the UGCC joining with Orthodoxy, this opens up an entire interesting can of "hrobaky."

There are many members of the UGCC that are not "Latinized" but who would not compromise their loyalty to Rome.

Also, such a reunification is more, as it always is, than merely theological gymnastics.

It involves tradition and culture as well. That of the Church of Galicia versus that of the Church of Greater Ukraine, which has always been a sore point.

The martyrs beatified by the Pope are not simply Catholic martyrs, but saints of the Galician Church.

People still remember our Orthodox friends ridicule these martyrs, as we Catholics ridiculed the very idea of an Orthodox saint - something Bl. Basil Velichkovsky mentions in his "Rule for Missionaries" in that book published about him.

If such a unity were broad-minded, allowing for the amalgamation of both rich traditions with a renewed "union with Rome" (not what we have now, Heaven help us) that would be acceptable to the Orthodox - then we really would have achieved something.

But that is way in the future. St Sophia belongs to Ukrainian Orthodoxy in jurisdictional terms.

It belongs to all Ukrainians by right of religious and national pride.

It also belongs to the entire Christian East.

A Happy Pascha!

Alex
Alex stated:
"The martyrs beatified by the Pope are not simply Catholic martyrs, but saints of the Galician Church."

Galician?? Talk about Ukrainian usage! It is Kyiv not Kiev, Galicia not Halychyna!! :p You were right when you said that St. Sophia belongs to the whole Christian East. That is so true because St. Sophia's in Kyiv is the spiritual foundation for all Eastern Slavs.
Posted By: Daniil Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/04/02 06:19 PM
The only reason that the UOC-MP seems more legitimate is because it oppressed all the other churches with the help of the KGB.

Daniil
Posted By: FAW Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/05/02 08:05 PM
Quote
If such a unity were broad-minded, allowing for the amalgamation of both rich traditions with a renewed "union with Rome" (not what we have now, Heaven help us) that would be acceptable to the Orthodox - then we really would have achieved something.

Alex, I agree. The arrangement we have with Rome is not fair. Institutionally we cannot make decisions, set forth policy, canonize saints for our Church. The recent creation of two new Latin diocese in Ukraine illustrates this. With the stroke of the pen, Rome creates diocese and organizations with ease, wherever they wish in the world. Meanwhile, Chicago still does not have a bishop, our Churhc in Ukraine had to get "permission" to establish the eparchy of Donetsk-Kharkiv from Rome, becasue "eastern" Ukraine was not our "traditional" teritory of the Uniate Church. However, Peremyshyl, part of our traditinoal territory, is outside of our jurisdiction becasue it is in present day Poland. The double stanards are glaring and I know that you already know this. I guess my point is that the problems are more political than theological by any means. This is what I think keeps the Orthodox/Roman Catholic union, not issues such as purgatory, or the philioque.

But I ask again, whay should the Ukrainian Catholic Church act as a sui juis church and re-establish communion with a canonical Orthodox Ukrainian Church. I guess I must be a heretic, I think our Church should start acting unilaterally and not waiting for the command from Rome to "sit", or "roll over".

As regards to St. Sophia, due to the reality of history and the modern state of Ukraine, I can only agree with you that St. Sophia is an Othodox temple. However, in truth, one can strongly argue that the true "hier" to the metropolitan throne of Kyiv is the Greek Catholic Major Archbishop (wanna-be Patriarch wink )Lybomyr and not the Orthodox. The last independent act of the Ruthenian Church of Kyiv was the ratification of the Union of Brest.

Christ is Risen!
ALity
Posted By: Robert K. Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/06/02 02:22 AM
But I ask again, whay should the Ukrainian Catholic Church act as a sui juis church and re-establish communion with a canonical Orthodox Ukrainian Church. I guess I must be a heretic, I think our Church should start acting unilaterally and not waiting for the command from Rome to "sit", or "roll over".


If your asking why dosnt the Ukrainian Catholic Church re establish communion with the canonical Orthodox Church (Assumingly you mean the Moscow controlled group). The Orthodox Church does not allow Catholics to recieve communion in their Churches for any reason. The only way that this would be possible is for the Ukrainian Catholics to break with Rome and become Orthodox (THey probably wouldnt be recognized as "canonical" anyway unless they were swallowed up whole by Moscow).

I seriously doubt that such a thing will happen because the Ukrainian Catholics are very loyal to Rome. In fact, they were so loyal to the Catholic faith that several million of them went underground for her from the late forties to the early nineties. Many were horribly martyred for the unia by communist oppressers who persecuted and killed them soly because they were Catholics. While this blood bath was occuring, Stalins sock puppet (Russian Orthodoxy) was happily sitting by the sidelines helping uncle Joe wipe out the very name of Catholic from the face of Ukraine. This persecution of Ukrainian Catholics is still going on today as well. Ukrainian Catholics quit frequently sheed their blood in order to deffend their churches from being forcibly taken by thugs who claim to be devout Orthodox Christians. Since it is also the younger genration who is doing alot of the bleeding in these disputes, I doubt very much that they would be very overjoyed about returning to "canonical Orthodoxy". It certainly is easy to blame something on the dreaded "latinizations: instead of actually examing the facts about why around six million Ukrainians feel the necessity to remain in union with the Catholic Church. But one must always look closely at why people do what they do.

I suggest to understand why Ukrainians dont over abundantly jumb into the arms of what passes for "canonical Orthodoxy", you read some of the testimony of the new martyrs of the Ukrainian Catholic Church and see what they suffered and were tried with, never once making a compromise, and then ask yourself why would union with Rome (The dreaded unia) be so important to these people that they, instead of just becoming Orthodox, would sacrifice their own lives for it? Also remeber to ask yourself why Ukrainian Catholics continue to remain in union with Rome despite the fact that their already is a Ukrainian Orthodox Church they could belong to? Surly their lot in life would be greatly eased if they were to go over and become Orthodox?

But what keeps them from making such a move?

Some thoughts to ponder.

Robert K.
Posted By: FAW Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/06/02 03:54 AM
Robert K. -

You are missing the entire scope of my point. And thanks alot for the info about my Church. I had no idea we were underground for the last 50 years! confused

I never stated THE canonical Orthodox Church, I stated A canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, with the implication that, in the future, when there will be a canonical patriarch of Ukraine, barring a Russian Military invasion, or a complete collapse of society in Ukraine, that the sui juiris UGCC attempt at resorting communion and unity with this Orthodox Church while retaining union with Rome as well. The RCC continues to leave us out of the greater ecumenical movement, but I see no reason why the Ukrainian Churches should not work unilaterally toward this goal.

Christ is Risen!!
ALity
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/06/02 01:05 PM
[that the sui juiris UGCC attempt at resorting communion and unity with this Orthodox Church while retaining union with Rome as well. The RCC continues to leave us out of the greater ecumenical movement, but I see no reason why the Ukrainian Churches should not work unilaterally toward this goal.]

CHRIST IS RISEN!

And, where does doctine fit into this equation? Or is everyone just free to believe whatever they want. Or are you just gong to label everything that is in question theologumena for the sake of politics and nationalism?

The problem I, as well as many other Orthodox have is that it reads more like a political alliance than a religious one.

Right now, to be 'in communion with Rome' one is also 'under Romes authority' to certain degree no matter how much you try and cover it with sugar coated words. To be under Romes authority also means you accept its doctrine.


Ephesians 4:4-6 [Caps are mine]

There is one body, ONE FAITH, one baptism;
one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all

2 Peter 1:20

knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,

Right now one cannot be 'in communion' with both since we do not share the same faith. This has been pointed out to the Melkites by BOTH CHURCHES.

OrthoMan
Dear Friends,

XPUCTOC BOCKPEC!

It is too wonderful a time for me to be arguing with anyone!

But I wanted to say that both Orthodox and Catholics in Ukraine and elsewhere, of course, have had their martyrs and confessors, suffering terribly for Christ's Name.

St Sophia always was and is Orthodox.

Alex
Posted By: Daniil Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/06/02 11:28 PM
Why don't we (Orthodox and Catholics) share the same faith?

Daniil
That is what we all want. Its just a matter of time.
Dear Daniil and UC,

Even if we did share the same faith, and I think we, by and large, do, the fact that we are separated as Churches means that we are not one Church.

The Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox have agreed, on the theological level, to a common Christology.

But they are still separated and even if they agreed on the Ecumenical Councils issue, they would still have to come together in a mutually recognized act of reunion in order to be one Church.

And I'm not telling you anything you don't already know - and you know that too smile .

As Brendan once wrote, when reunion takes place, in God's good time, both sides will probably believe that the other "came over" to them.

Alex
Posted By: FAW Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/09/02 08:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Daniil:
Why don't we (Orthodox and Catholics) share the same faith?

Daniil

Well, there is the issue of Purgatory which we, as Greek Catholics officially accept, and the Orthodox do not.

The Dogma of the Immcaculate Conception, we officially accept, and the Orthodox do not.

The Dogma of Papal Infallibility and Supremacy, we accept and the Orthodox have a different understainding of.

OrthoMan: Thanks for your points. Well taken. smile I was getting carried away on the political and forgetting the more important spiritual and theological.

I still would like to see a united Church in Ukraine. Regardless of what has happened since the unia, The hiers of the Ruthenian Orthodox Church of Kyiv bishops is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and her bishops. At least, that is my belief and understanding from what I have studied. We have a place in Kyiv and at St. Sophia.

Happy Feast of the Annunciation
ALity

[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: ALity ]
Dear Ality,

Actually, Orthoman's position tends toward the old Russian style one that saw "politics and nationalism" in anything that wanted independence from Moscow - that's up to you to decide.

I'm an old style Greek Catholic, and Orthoman knows that well enough!

Great Russian chauvinism is subtle and it still exists, have no fear, today, not only in the Moscow Patriarchate, but also in a number of "canonical" Orthodox jurisdictions.

There are only two real issues separating Ukrainian Orthodox and Catholics today:

The Pope and his jurisdiction.

And Ukrainian unwillingness to give up their own little ecclesial principalities in favour of one united Church centred in Kyiv.

I've said my peace and I can hear the cannons roar already!

This Old Style Greek Catholic is outta here!

Alex
Posted By: FAW Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/11/02 06:03 AM
BOOM

BANG


KA POW !!!!!!
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/11/02 11:47 AM
Alex and Ality:

Perhaps you can explain to me why Russification is so bad while Polanization and Latinization is OK.

OrthoMan
OrthoMan,
All 3 are not encouraged.
Posted By: FAW Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/11/02 11:26 PM
OrthoMan -

As uc stated, all three are not good. Latinization and Polonization are sore spots in the past. Yet, Russification continues to this day, because the Russian Church has been a political machine for centuries. It is a real sadness when one Orthodox Church oppresses another and supports military aggression and colonialization against their neighbor. Russia has, for centuries, tried to claim Ukraine and the legacy of Kyivan Rus' as solely their legacy and has killed millions of Ukrainians through hundreds of years of subjugation. And the Russian Orthodox Church has been, and continues to be, all too willing to support this political agenda.

Now, Latinization/Polonization is the choice of our own people. Those policies are history with respect to the majority of Poles and the Roman Church. But the ROC still wishes to control Ukrainians and tell them that they are "little" Russians.

Personally, if you are Russian Orthodox, forgive me, but I wish they would concentrate on being better Christians and better Russians in their own country and LEAVE THEIR NEIGHBORS ALONE. KYIV IS NOT YOURS, NOR THE CAVES MONASTERY, NOR POCHAIV. Let Ukraine be. And Russians can never do this, because then they would have to admit that much of their culture and identity comes from Ukraine, something their pride will never let them admit. They want to say that Russia received Byzantine Christianity from Constantinople and this is just a plain lie and perversion of history. Russian Orthodoxy descenedd from Kyiv, that is why Russians call Kyiv the "mother of all Russian cities" and the ugly reality that Kyiv is not a Russian city forces them to deal with the truth, something they have not been able to accept for 800 years.


Christ has Ascended!
From earth to heaven!
ALITY

[ 05-11-2002: Message edited by: ALity ]
Ality - Great post, I stand applauding. cool
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/12/02 01:06 AM
[Latinization and Polonization are sore spots in the past. Yet, Russification continues to this day, because the Russian Church has been a political machine for centuries.]

And the Roman Catholic Church hasn't been and is no longer a sore spot where your Church is concerned? Then why did you post? -

[The arrangement we have with Rome is not fair. Institutionally we cannot make decisions, set forth policy, canonize saints for our Church.

Meanwhile, Chicago still does not have a bishop, our Churhc in Ukraine had to get "permission" to establish the eparchy of Donetsk-Kharkiv from Rome, becasue "eastern" Ukraine was not our "traditional" teritory of the Uniate Church. However, Peremyshyl, part of our traditinoal territory, is outside of our jurisdiction becasue it is in present day Poland. The double stanards are glaring and I know that you already know this.
I think our Church should start acting unilaterally and not waiting for the command from Rome to "sit", or "roll over".]


What you have written above certainly doesn't seem to indicate past sore spots but present realities that you over look in your hatred.
It seems that your whole church is based upon hatred, nationalism, and politics. Doctrine and theology don't seem to the factors in the justification of its existence. Only hatred and nationalism.
How many great theologians has the Unia produced since its inception? I'm not talking about great Hierachs or martyred saints. Protestantism has also produced great leaders and martyrs. I'm talking theologians that have written books or papers on the theology of Christianity. How about present day theologians that are on the par of Schmemann, Meyendorff, Constatine Platis, Anthony Coniaris, etc.? Every Ukrainian Catholic bookstore I've gone in has about 80% of their books by Orthodox theologians. The other 25% are Roman Catholic.
What I am hearing from both of you is - 'We'll pick who we perceive to be the lesser of two evils. And that is the one we will bow down to for the time being.
Every Ukrainin Orthodox Church I have ever been in has it's own beautiful and unique Ukrainian customs. So I don't see where the Russification comes in. Especially since I have been in Ukrainian Catholic Churches with no Iconstasis, Icons with the 'sacred heart' & 'immaculate heart', western style Altars, statues, etc. So, who has changed your Ukrainian identity more? The Russians or the Roman Catholics who you pay allegiance to? Personally I prefer to see the Theotokos & child dressed in Ukrainian cross stitch peasant blouses (like the UOC in my area) than with the immaculate and sacred heart.
You see, in spite of all the squabling amongst the various Orthodox jurisdicions, when someone asks me why I am Orthodox I know its because of the doctrines that formulate its faith. But you on the other hand, seem to be telling me you are Ukrainian Catholic because it prevents your church from being Russified. Why at the same time you complain about the lack of freedom it has under RC domination. Makes no sense to me. Guess maybe its because I preceive religion altogether different than you do.

CHRIST IS RISEN!

OrthoMan
OrthoMan,
Our Chicago Eparchy's new bishop is supposed to be announced at Sobor this summer in Ukraine.

I have seen many ikony with Ukrainian embroidery in Ukrainian Cath. Churches. Some Ukrainian Catholic Churches are more eastern and traditional than some Ukie Orthodox churches. Take Sts. Volodymyr and Olha in Chicago, St. Nick's in Toronto or our fav. traditional church, St. Elias smile .

Most Ukrainian Orthodox Churches I have seen are latinized. I have been to many because most of my family is Orthodox and many were/are priests and one bishop. Many of thier icons are western in style and rectangluar Holy Tables. In Ukraine, this Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral in L'viv had stations and a statue of Mary! The side chapel didn't even have an iconostas. The church has always been Orthodox too. Does this make the Ukrainian Orthodox bad? No. I love the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. It is a great and holy church of martyrs.

Hatred is a harsh word. Theology and doctrine are very big in our existence. Saying that the basis of our existance as Christians and as a Church is based on hatred and nationalism is not only hurtful and wrong but also definately not in Christian Spirit. You don't seem to be to fond of Ukrainian Catholics.

Whats wrong with nationalism? Taken to the extreme isn't the best but being nationalistic is what makes us what we are as a Ukrainian church. Some of our greatest figures weren't full Ukrainian if at all like St. Petro Mohyla or Andrey Sheptytsky, the latter being part Polish I believe.

Looking for some Ukr. Cath. theologians? Check out the Sheptytsky Insitute in Ottawa with Fr. Andriy Chirovsky or Fr. Galadza.

Xpucmoc Bockpec! BoicmuHy Bockpec!
-ukrainiancatholic

'Liud Ukrayinskiy zavzhdy Tviy.'
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/12/02 04:08 AM
[Theology and doctrine are very big in our existence.]

Then by all means tell me just what is the theology of your church? What exactly is the theology of the Ukrainian Catholic Church? Is it that or the Orthodox Catholic Church or the Roman Catholic Church? If its that of the RCC then why the offense taken when someone identifies you as a Roman Catholic of the Eastern Rite? What are the principal doctrines you are required to believe to be considered a Ukrainian Catholic in good standing?

Do you believe in the Immaculate Conception?
Do you believe in Papal Supremecy?
Do you believe in Papal infallibility?

You see, as an Orthodox Catholic, that answer is very simple for me. I can state it in one sentence by just declaring I believe and accept every doctrine that was formulated during the first seven ecumenical councils. Now, do you believe in only the doctrines formulated during the first seven ecumenical councils, or do you believe in the doctrines added by the RCC after those councils? If you believe in those doctrines added by Rome then, once again, why the offense at being called a Roman Catholic?

[Most Ukrainian Orthodox Churches I have seen are latinized. I have been to many because most of my family is Orthodox and many were/are priests and one bishop. Many of thier icons are western in style and rectangluar Holy Tables. In Ukraine, this Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral in L'viv had stations and a statue of Mary! The side chapel didn't even have an iconostas. The church has always been Orthodox too. Does this make the
Ukrainian Orthodox bad?]

And where did all that come from? It certainly wasn't from the Russians. It came from the Unia.
So it was neither the Russians nor the Orthodox that polluted the faith (both Orthodox & Ukrainian Catholic) with westernization now was it?

[Whats wrong with nationalism?]

Nothing as long as it doesn't take priority over God and religion where the church is concerned.
So why is it that every time the UCC is brought up the discussion is on nationalism and politics? Never on what you believe regarding Christ and his Church.

Orthoman
What's it to you, about our theology?

What spiritual satisfaction and grace will you get if I and others answering these questions?

You are a member of the OCA, formally under Moscow. You are not Ukrainian Catholic so therefore why do you ask so much about our church?

Do you really seek information about our church or are you out to try to prove a point and put us down?

You really seem to have a bitterness towards our UCC. Why?

So instead of you asking me many questions and vice versa, lets get back on topic; St. Sophia's Cathedral in Kyiv, it's cultural and spiritual importance to Kyivan-Rus' a.k.a. Ukraine. Lets get back on topic by discussing it's importance in the future role as the focal point of a unified Kyivan Church. Please leave your bitterness and vendetta towards the UCC out of this thread, and lets focus on St. Sophia and a one-day unified Kyivan Church.

-ukrainiancatholic
Liud Ukrayinskiy zavzhdy Tviy
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/12/02 01:33 PM
[What's it to you, about our theology?
What spiritual satisfaction and grace will you get if I and others answering these questions?]

Because that is why I am here. To discuss religious beliefs and the theology. I have learned many different things from many different people of many different religious backgrounds by being in here. And hopefully others have learned from me. That is the purpose of this forum. My knowledge of the religious opinions and concepts of other Christian denominations has been enriched.

[Do you really seek information about our church or are you out to try to prove a point and put us down?
You really seem to have a bitterness towards our UCC. Why?]

Yes I do seek info about your church. But once again, excuse my honesty, it seems that when the UGCC is brought up, the replies are in the context of either politics, anti Russian rhetoric, or fierce Ukrainian nationalism. Never theology.
It is because of that I have the concept I do about the UGCC.
I have had many enriching conversations with both Byzantine Catholics and Roman Catholics on this forum regarding doctrine and theology. I may not agree with what they say but at least I know where they stand. Therein lies the difference.

[So instead of you asking me many questions and vice versa, lets get back on topic; St.Sophia's Cathedral in Kyiv,]

You are absolutely right. I will withdraw my questions so that the subject matter can get back on track.

OrthoMan
Dear Orthoman,

Quite right, those Ukrainians are a confused lot! smile .

Alex

[ 05-13-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]
Dear Orthoman,

You ask good questions, to be sure.

The Immaculate Conception is a Latin doctrine intended to come up with the same conclusion about the Mother of God as the Eastern Church's liturgical tradition has had for centuries - that She was conceived in holiness.

The "pith and substance" of the doctrine is simply that. The way it was couched was to address the Augustinian penal notions of Original Sin that the East never accepted.

We continue to celebrate the "Conception of St Anne" and in doing so we celebrate what took the West a while to realize.

The papal doctrines are a different kettle of fish, but we have our own perspective on these.

For us, union with Rome as the centre of Christianity is something that characterized the first thousand years of the undivided Orthodox and Catholic Church of Christ.

Although undoubtedly the doctrinal issues involving the papacy are different today, we continue to look to Rome as to the source of overall Church unity, while fostering our Particular Church traditions, theology and liturgical life.

John Meyendorff wrote that even these papal doctrines could be "re-presented" before an Ecumenical Council.

So in and of themselves, they are not necessarily against Orthodox theology.

And, yes, this Forum is an excellent place to learn about the spirituality and traditions of the Byzantine Catholic Churches.

If you don't like them, no one says you have to. You should respect the views of others, or so my grandmother said smile .

Anyone is welcome to come and participate here - we don't do business here on a "screen and approve" basis.

Alex
Posted By: FAW Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/14/02 01:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by OrthoMan:
[Latinization and Polonization are sore spots in the past. Yet, Russification continues to this day, because the Russian Church has been a political machine for centuries.]

And the Roman Catholic Church hasn't been and is no longer a sore spot where your Church is concerned? Then why did you post? -

[The arrangement we have with Rome is not fair. Institutionally we cannot make decisions, set forth policy, canonize saints for our Church.

Meanwhile, Chicago still does not have a bishop, our Churhc in Ukraine had to get "permission" to establish the eparchy of Donetsk-Kharkiv from Rome, becasue "eastern" Ukraine was not our "traditional" teritory of the Uniate Church. However, Peremyshyl, part of our traditinoal territory, is outside of our jurisdiction becasue it is in present day Poland. The double stanards are glaring and I know that you already know this.
I think our Church should start acting unilaterally and not waiting for the command from Rome to "sit", or "roll over".

What you have written above certainly doesn't seem to indicate past sore spots but present realities that you over look in your hatred.
It seems that your whole church is based upon hatred, nationalism, and politics. Doctrine and theology don't seem to the factors in the justification of its existence. Only hatred and nationalism.

The terms hatred, and nationalism are not appropriate when addressing my points of view. If you knew me, you would not say such things. I will leave this point on that note.

The current reality of my Church is not the result of overt political/military/or social pressure by Rome. It is mostly the result of actions of our own hierarchs.

Contrast that to what the Russian Orthodox Church willfully and knowingly has done to the Ukrianian Greek Catholic Church: 1) the pseudo-synod of Lviv in 1946 2) tacit support of the imprisonment of our bishops 1946-1990 3) The outright absorption of our churches and liquidation into the Russian Orthodox Church. 4) The refusal of the ROC, to this day, to call us Greek Catholics, preferring to use the pejorative term "uniates" against our wishes AND the ROC's current position maintaining that the pseudo-synod of Lviv in 1946 was actually canonical! The main difference between Rome and Moscow, is that Rome, no matter how much they distort and pervert our rite, has and continues to honor our right to exist in the world, where as the ROC would just assume destroy us through any means objectively at their disposal. One need only to look at the current scandal in Russia concerning the Roman Catholic Church in Russia to see the extremes the ROC will go to propagate their agenda. Now you ask yourself, honestly, who is being more hate filled and natinalistic?

Quote
Originally posted by OrthoMan:
How many great theologians has the Unia produced since its inception?


The current state of our church with regard to Rome in fact answers this question. The changes in the RCC in regard to the Greek Catholic Churches can be found in documents such as "Orientale Lumen" and "Unt Unum Sint". Rome has done a complete 180 in regards to our church and now after years of repression from them, they "command" wink us to return to our traditions. You are absolutely right concerning the scholarship of our churches, it has not been there, largely in part to the historical trqagedies of our church. But I believe that this is changing and I will cite some works later which you can look into. The main point I am trying to impress upon you is that Rome has changed(repented) and supports the Greek Catholic Churches in regaining their patrimony. However, Moscow has not changed et all. The only good Greek Catholic Church in Moscow'ss eyes, is one that does'nt exist. And that is why I will "bow down to [Rome] in the time being".

The choice to remain under the immediate watch of Rome is the choice of our bishops, who at this time, are of the generation who was formed prior to Vatican II and are ingrained to believe that they "must" obey Rome at every breathe. The fact that they approved the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, even though they thought it had serious problems, testifies to this pyschological dependency on Rome. I expect that the new generation of Bishops will begin a change in the opposite (more Orthodox) direction. This frustrates me and leads me to post statements on this forum that you have quoted from me. But frustration and "righteous" anger at injustice is not a reason for divorce. Just like in a marriage, one does not end it because one's spouse upsets them, or acts improperly in certain instances. Love merits more and my ancestors long ago, the hiers to the Orthodox Church of Kyiv, decided that for better or for worse, union with Rome was the right decision for our Church and I am a testimony to that decision. And I will work for the vision they had of "Orthodox in Communion with Rome".

Quote
Originally posted by OrthoMan:
Hw about present day theologians that are on the par of Schmemann, Meyendorff, Constatine Platis, Anthony Coniaris, etc.?

The Christian Heritage of the East by Rev. Julian Katrij, OSBM

The Jesus Prayer A monk of the Eastern Church (yes, he was tonsured and ordianed by Met. Sheptytsky and you cannot disregard that fact when reading his works, although he is in fact regarded as Orthodox).

The Byzantine Divine Liturgy by Meletius Michael Solovey, OSBM

The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom by Laurence Daniel Huculak, OSBM

Quote
Originally posted by OrthoMan:
So, who has changed your Ukrainian identity more? The Russians or the Roman Catholics who you pay allegiance to?


The Romans - The Russians would just destroy our church and people, so there would be nothing left to change! wink

Quote
Originally posted by OrthoMan:
You see, in spite of all the squabling amongst the various Orthodox jurisdicions, when someone asks me why I am Orthodox I know its because of the doctrines that formulate its faith. But you on the other hand, seem to be telling me you are Ukrainian Catholic because it prevents your church from being Russified.


No that is not what I am saying, I never said that, Please don't twist my word to say such things. (very Russian of you, if I might add)

You should know why I am a Greek Catholic by now. smile


Quote
Originally posted by OrthoMan:
Guess maybe its because I preceive religion altogether different than you do.

If you say so, you obiviously would know. wink

Quote
Originally posted by OrthoMan:
CHRIST IS RISEN!
OrthoMan

Indeed He is Risen!
ALity

[ 05-13-2002: Message edited by: ALity ]
Posted By: Robert K. Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/14/02 02:11 AM
I certainly hope and pray that the next generation of Byzantine bishops does not pull us into Orthodoxy without them first reuniting with Rome! It is rather sad that such open schism can be propagated in our Church by those who, like fifth columnist, seek to sow dissention and discord in order to divide the body of Christ.

Also, where does one notice this present "pro-Orthodox trend in the Eastern rite? In Europe, Greek Catholics are still fighting and dying in order to protect their Churches from siezure and liquidation by the Churches that we now call "sisters". I really cannot imagine such a movement beinf fostered in that part of the world to return to people who already wish their absorbtion. No, I think that this movement is basically an American thing propagated by an our very own "American Greek Catholics" who themselves have never suffered a single thing for their union with Rome and probably do not value it as much as their brethren acros the seas who daily are reminded that they are Catholic by those that their Church calls "sisters".


I do not mean to be offensive in my comments on this subject but I am a person that does not like to gloss over issues that I feel strongly about. While I am happy that the Eastern rites are trying to get back to their traditions, in no way can I endorse a whole sale return to Orthodoxy in order to do it. I am proud to be Catholic and am willing at this very moment to lay down my life for the Holy Father and our Holy Mother, the Church if the situation required just as my Greek Catholic brothers in Eastern Europe are doing daily. These people are shinning examples of our religion as they exceopt all manner of evils for the deffense and propagation of their faith, may God grant that we all have the courage and wisdom of these simple and puis folk in fighting for ours against a see of adviseries.

Robert K.
Dear Ality,

You da man, Big Guy, you da man!!

Alex
Posted By: Dmitri Rostovski Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/14/02 05:20 PM
Kristos Voskrese,

If we are "sister" churches, then why fight at all? If the Orthodox want a piece of property so badly, then let them have it as long as Greek Catholics can worship as well. Eastern Christians (like myself) tend to be entirely too territorial. I find Eastern Catholics and Orthodox fighting over land to be as rediculous as ROCOR and ROC-MP arguing over churches. It is all about jurisdiction not faith. We all posses the same True Faith of the East. Sure, we may call a feast day by a different name or differ in our Menalogion or calander, but the Faith is there. I think that is the most important thing of all.

Dmitri
Dear Dmitri,

Points well taken!

But no matter what, Byzantine Catholics will be "Uniates" to the Orthodox, which means we are excommunicated heretics.

But that St Sophia in Kyiv was and is an Orthodox Shrine - of this there can be no doubt.

All I've said is that it would be a good thing if the Ukrainian Orthodox (the rightful owners) could allow other Churches, including the Eastern Catholic Church, to serve Divine Liturgy there, if only in a specially designated chapel.

The Shrine of Our Lady Of Walsingham in England is shared by Anglicans, Roman Catholics and Orthodox.

We should take an example from "This sceptred Island, this . . . England!"

Alex
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/14/02 06:28 PM
[But no matter what, Byzantine Catholics will be "Uniates" to the Orthodox, which means we are excommunicated heretics.]

May I remind you that the term Uniate is of Latin origin and given to you by the Roman Catholic Church. Not the Russians or the Orthodox Catholic Church.

[All I've said is that it would be a good thing if the Ukrainian Orthodox (the rightful owners) could allow other Churches, including the Eastern Catholic Church, to serve Divine Liturgy there, if only in a specially designated chapel.]

Based on that analogy then why are the Orthodox in Livov able to share St george's Cathedral with the Ukrainian Greek Catholics?

Your analogy is very one sided Alex.

OrthoMan
Dear Orthoman,

It would be good if St George's in Lviv did allow the Orthodox to serve Liturgy there.

The Orthodox certainly served there for quite a few years . . .

In Lviv, however, and in Galicia, the MP Orthodox are not "flavour of the month." Something to do with a Sobor in 1946 and, oh yes, tanks as well.

Hopefully, the people will overcome that, just as the Russian Orthodox will hopefully overcome their feeling that Ukraine is their Patriarchal back-yard. But no time soon, alas.

St Sophia's is in quite a different category than any local church like that.

I know you don't like it when we talk like this, but it is a national Shrine in addition to being an Orthodox one.

And no one is saying that heretics should be allowed to serve Liturgy at the main altar but perhaps in a chapel as is done at Walsingham and other national shrines around the world.

Not one-sided, only practical and fair-minded.

Actually, you are wrong about Rome imposing the term "Uniate" on us.

Our Eastern Catholic forefathers did that themselves. They called themselves either "Orthodox in union with Rome" or else "Greco-Uniates."

Over time, the term "Uniate" became one of opprobrium and it has been discarded.

There are a lot of terms like that that have undergone an evolution.

We Byzantine Catholics ask the world not to use a term that is today offensive to us. And it's not like this issue hasn't been raised on this Forum before.

That is only common courtesy and general sensitivity to other's feelings. Perhaps your new forum will reflect these values one day as well.

Alex
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/14/02 08:54 PM
[In Lviv, however, and in Galicia, the MP Orthodox are not "flavour of the month." Something to do with a Sobor in 1946 and, oh yes, tanks as well.]

As the Ukrainian Greek Catholic is not the flavor of the month in Kiev and eastern Ukraine. Something to do with 1596 I believe.

How many novels do you read where you only read the last chapter (1946) to analyze the situation. To get the full story you have to start from page one chapter one (1596). When to remain Orthodox were declared an act of treason -

{The council met in the city of Brest on October 6, 1596. In order to prevent a parallel Orthodox council in any of the numerious Orthodox churches in the city, THE METROPOLITAN OF KIEV SEALED ALL ORTHODOX CHURCHES ON THE DAY BEFORE THE COUNCIL WAS TO BEGIN, EXCEPT FOR THE CATHEDRAL WHERE THE COUNCIL WAS TO TAKE PLACE. The Orthodox, nevertheless, converged on Brest as well, with Prince Ostrozhskii and his private army at the head. Failing to find an open church, and after waiting in vain for an invitation from the Uniates, they accepted an offer of a Protestant church school hall for a separate Orthodox Council. The Uniate Council passed a resolution excommunicating all the Orthodox clergy and laity participating in the Orthodox Council. The Orthodox in turn suspended all the clergy and lay participants in the Uniate Council and addressed a petition to the King, asking him to deprive "the traitors" of their dioceses and parishes. But the King decided otherwise: his edict of October 15 legalized only those Byzantine-rite Christians who joined the Unia; IT DECREED THE ORTHODOX CHURCH NULL AND VOID AND ALL IT'S CLERGY EXCOMMUNCATED; WHILE CONTINUING MEMBERSHIP IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH WAS DECLARED TO BE AN ACT OF TREASON AGAINST THE STATE.}

Sound familiar? First and last chapters of the novel are almost parallel. As they say what goes around comes around. And history repeats itself.
Why is chapter one to be over looked and just the last chapter important?

OrthoMan
Posted By: FAW Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/14/02 11:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by OrthoMan:


How many novels do you read where you only read the last chapter (1946) to analyze the situation. To get the full story you have to start from page one chapter one (1596). When to remain Orthodox were declared an act of treason -

{The council met in the city of Brest on October 6, 1596. In order to prevent a parallel Orthodox council in any of the numerious Orthodox churches in the city, THE METROPOLITAN OF KIEV SEALED ALL ORTHODOX CHURCHES ON THE DAY BEFORE THE COUNCIL WAS TO BEGIN, EXCEPT FOR THE CATHEDRAL WHERE THE COUNCIL WAS TO TAKE PLACE. The Orthodox, nevertheless, converged on Brest as well, with Prince Ostrozhskii and his private army at the head. Failing to find an open church, and after waiting in vain for an invitation from the Uniates, they accepted an offer of a Protestant church school hall for a separate Orthodox Council. The Uniate Council passed a resolution excommunicating all the Orthodox clergy and laity participating in the Orthodox Council. The Orthodox in turn suspended all the clergy and lay participants in the Uniate Council and addressed a petition to the King, asking him to deprive "the traitors" of their dioceses and parishes. But the King decided otherwise: his edict of October 15 legalized only those Byzantine-rite Christians who joined the Unia; IT DECREED THE ORTHODOX CHURCH NULL AND VOID AND ALL IT'S CLERGY EXCOMMUNCATED; WHILE CONTINUING MEMBERSHIP IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH WAS DECLARED TO BE AN ACT OF TREASON AGAINST THE STATE.}

Sound familiar? First and last chapters of the novel are almost parallel. As they say what goes around comes around. And history repeats itself.
Why is chapter one to be over looked and just the last chapter important?

OrthoMan

OrthoMan-

Can you cite this reference? Who wrote it? One thing you overlook is that the majority of the rightfully ordained Bishops of the Orthodox Church of Kyiv willingly, and without overbearing military force compelling them, decided to freely enter into union with Rome. Which Bishops were present at the paralell Orthodox council in Brest? In which coucnil was the majority of the properlly vested authority present? Where was the Kyivan Metropolitan himself? In the Orthodox coucnil, or the council in support of unity with Rome? You know what the answers are.

Furthermore, Prince Ostrozhskii was not opposed to union with Rome, rather he wanted a full an complete union between Constantinople and Rome, not just Kyiv and Rome. Because his concept was not the one in favor, he acted in what one could not call otherwise sheer vanity and assembled his army and anyone who sided with him to rally in Brest. Who has the moral authority in a church, the bishops, or the lay member with an army?

The majority of the rightfully ordained bishops voted in favor of the unia and that is a stark contrast to the synod of 1946 wherein Soviet troops held guns to the heads of preists, not bishops, to sign a false declaration rescinding the Union of Brest.

The agitation of the split and polemics between Orthodox and Greek Catholics after Brest was fueled by Constantinople and later Muscovy trying to derail the union. But at the time of the Union the church that entered into this union was the Ruthenian Orthodox Church of Kyiv. There is no better or more proper name for this church at this point in secular history. Perhaps the union would have been more successful without the interference of outside political forces seeking to divide the Ruthenian nation? But alas, history shows us that the Orthodox outside of Rus' were successful in their efforts. For modern day Ukraine is still split along this single decision of the Kyivan Chruch in 1596.

The wrong actions of one secular government in 1596 does not justify, or sanction similiar improper actions of another secular state in 1946. Both actions were equally wrong. But it still does not hide the fact that the Church known today as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and the Greek Catholic Church of Transcarpathia have a legitimate rite to exist and are valid churches.

Alex, I agree that St. Sophia's is an Orthodox shrine as well as a national shrine of Ukraine. But it is also a Greek Catholic church by the very nature of the fact that the Kyivan metropolitan signed into union with Rome and this Church of Kyiv, of which St. Sophia was the cathedral, is now known today as the Ukrainian Greek Catolic Church. My official position is that it should be a shared church, for it now has two masters (the Orthodox who opposed the union, and the Orthodox who supported the union).

Now what about Jesus folks?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
ALity :p

[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: ALity ]
Posted By: FAW Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/14/02 11:22 PM
OrthoMan-

By the way, I never read the last chapter of a book first. :p

ALity
Dear Orthoman,

It simply wasn't my intention to say anything more than what I did about Orthodoxy in L'viv in response to that point.

I agree with you about Eastern Ukraine, although the "Kyivan Churches" including both Orthodox and Catholic Ukrainians are cooperating with each other in a way they are not with the Russians.

As for the book reading business, I just wanted to let you know that I've read a few in my life-time smile . The six professors on my doctoral examining committee absolutely insisted on it.

That you may feel I add a subjective interpretation to what I read and know, well, there is no person alive who doesn't, yourself included.

The notion that one can simply point to a body of facts and say, "See, I told you so" is sheer nonsense. Everything is interpretation and we believe what we want to believe, "facts" notwithstanding.

Sorry, but the idea that one's religious affiliation somehow crosses out one's national or cultural affiliation is a quaint North American idea. It doesn't exist anywhere else in the world.

And as for the Union of Brest, there have been many things that have impacted the Eastern Catholic Church that developed from that.

One cannot take the documents and words of the papers signed then out of the context of the 400 years since the Union was signed.

Do you deny any good that came from the Union of Brest?

If I were a secularist and you answered in the affirmative, I as a disinterested bystander would simply respond by saying you are being ideological.

Frankly, I'm getting tired about these kind of religious attacks at one another's Churches that serve no purpose other than to deepen hostilities and suspicions.

I don't think I, or anyone who is a Byzantine Catholic, should have to come here to justify their background which is more than the sum total of the documents signed at Brest-Litovsk.

Why don't you try saying something positive about it for a change?

There was one Russian holy man who said there was really only one difference between us: a letter - KaTolyky (us) and KaFolyky (Orthodox).

Have a great day!

Alex

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/15/02 03:14 PM
It seems that even though we had agreed that we had gotten away from the original subject matter of this folder, and further agreed to either open up a new thread or cease posting here, we are all alike in one respect. We all have to get in the last word. So, I will give you honest answers to two questions you asked me in your most recent post. You are probably not going to like them but good, bad, right, wrong they are my honest opinion. So here goes.

[Do you deny any good that came from the Union of Brest? ]

You are right I do not see any good that came from the Union. Because of the reasons and the way it came about, it did nothing but increase the hostility, hatred, and distrust between the RCC and the OCC. Excuse me for my complete honesty here but I look at the result of that union 400+ later and all I see is people who seem to have an identity crisis. People who do not want to be full fledged Roman Catholics but don't want to be full fledged Orthodox Catholics either. People who seem to change their religious identity every twenty or so years. In just my life time its gone from Greek Catholic to either Byzantine Catholic or Ukrainian Catholic (based on ethnic identity) to 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome'.
I read the 33 articles of the Union and to me, its pretty plain on why, and under what conditions, the union was signed. What other reasons can you interpret guarantees requested before the union could be signed such as -

17.�Inasmuch as we have lost the possession of many ecclesiastical properties, some of which our predecessors alienated by rights other than the free administration of these goods during their personal lives, so that we find ourselves in such want and poverty that we cannot provide satisfactorily for the needs of the churches, and indeed we ourselves scarcely have the means of subsistence, we require that these properties be returned to our churches. If anyone has legitimately acquired the lifetime usufruct of any ecclesiastical benefice, let him be obliged to pay an annual rent to the Church, and upon his death let the benefice revert to the Church. Such a benefice shall not be granted to anyone without the consent of the bishop and his chapter. Every benefice to which the Church presently has title is to be recorded in the Gospel Books, even if the Church does not exercise any control over some benefices. In that way they will at least belong indisputably to the Church. With this accomplished, the Church can then undertake to regain those benefices which have been alienated at an earlier time.

22.�That the Romans should not forbid us to ring bells in our churches on Good Friday, both in the cities and everywhere else.



23.�That we should not be forbidden to visit the sick with the Most Holy Mysteries, publicly, with lights and vestments, according to our rubrics.

24.�That without any interference we might be free to hold processions, as many as are required, on holy days, according to our custom.

25.�That our Rus' monasteries and churches should not be changed into Roman Catholic churches. And if any Roman Catholic has damaged or destroyed one of our churches or monasteries, in his territory, he shall be obliged to repair it or build a new one for the exclusive use of the Rus' people.


27.�That we shall be free to have schools and seminaries in the Greek and Church�Slavonic languages in the localities where it is most convenient, and that our printing-presses shall be free (of course under the supervision of the Metropolitain and bishops, so that no heresies be propagated and nothing be printed without the knowledge and consent of the Metropolitain and bishops).

Can you imagine what life must have been for our ancestors as Orthodox Catholics if these articles had to be guaranteed before union with the RCC could become a reality?
Even the Bishops themselves give a clue as to WHY the Union was being made when they write -

13.�And if in time the Lord shall grant that the rest of the brethren of our people and of the Greek Religion shall come to this same holy unity, it shall not be held against us or begrudged to us that we have preceded them in this unity, for we have to do this for definite, serious reasons for harmony in the Christian republic [Poland] to avoid further confusion and discord.

You don't have to be either a theologian or a historian to interpret the articles I have listed.

[Why don't you try saying something positive about it for a change?]

Because, in all honesty I have nothing positive to say about it. I have seen the results of that union. I have seen how your ancestors were treated by the RCC after the union. And I see how you are still being treated today and I just shake my head in bewilderment on WHY you stay.

I read in here your posts complaining about having to get permission from Rome regarding the election of Hierachs, married clergy, consecration of Bishops, etc. and then in the next sentence proclaim that you are a sui juris church 'in communion with' rather than 'under the authority of' Rome. And just shake my head because its all so illogical to me.

I think its time I just go into a lurk mode because I really don't like the way this thread has gone and how my honesty has gotten me in hot water with you all.

Because, in spite of everything, I do recognize you as 'separated' brothers and sisters and love and respect each of you individually as such. I don't know how to explain it other than its like having a sister you care about who is separated from you and in what you preceive as a bad marriage. You see how she has been been looked down upon in the past. And you stand by and see her complain about her current treatment while she does nothing to about it. Instead she says things like well he promised that things will get better (but they never do). Kind of like the 'battered wifes syndrome.'

Once again, forgive me for my total honesty regarding my feelings and opinions. It has gotten me into trouble before and it will do so again. But its the way I am.

OrthoMan

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: OrthoMan ]
Dear Orthoman,

This whole topic is a can of worms, to be sure.

I don't, and can't, disagree with your assessment of the negative impact of the Unia.

Being Eastern Catholic today means to be in a state of tension via Rome.

It means worrying about your future married priests, getting upset when bishops are chosen and have pallia wrapped around them at their consecrations, and just when you think you've got all the liturgical Latinisms covered off, someone comes up with a new one nobody has ever seen before!

It's a constant struggle and perhaps the question we Byzantine Catholics should ask ourselves is why we put up with it? Certainly thousands of our ancestors didn't and returned to Orthodoxy.

For me, this decision isn't totally mine to make. I am imbedded in a family, a parish and a community.

Ultimately, Byzantine Catholics belong with their respective Orthodox Churches. Ultimately, the Unia, as the RC theologians have said as well, was a bad historical mistake.

But out of that mistake came a living community that suffered for its identity and faith and continues to progress in its life in Christ.

No one is saying that is the ideal situation, because it isn't.

We are two communities who are ultimately destined to become one - in God's good time, not ours.

When I said these exact same words to a ROCOR priest, he hugged and kissed me.

I was going to try this out on an OCA priest I met, but then gave up the idea when I heard his British accent . . . smile .

You are in trouble with no one - can't we rip each other apart once in awhile? What kind of Slavs are we if we can't? smile

I hope that you aren't starting to feel North American assimilationist pressures and are wimping out as a consequence smile

Alex

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/15/02 04:02 PM
Alex:

Thanks for your honest reply. You made my day. Can't stand to have people mad at me or p----- off at me!

OrthoMan
(Your Orthodox brother)
Dear Bob,

Remember - You da Ortoman!!

In addition, I think one of my Ukie confreres made a slightly disparaging remark about the OCA being a former Russian jurisdiction etc.

As you know, and as I know, the OCA has many Ukrainians within its fold. I have an article by one of them who wrote about how the OCA is wonderfully accommodating to Ukrainian identity and culture.

I've been to a number of OCA parishes in the U.S. and am always impressed by the way your Church is both so welcoming and open to others.

As a matter of fact, the last time I was at St Demetrios' parish in Naples, Florida, the Presbytera thought I was a new parishioner and asked me to help with some of the furniture moving - which I did, no problem!

Alex

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]
Posted By: Dmitri Rostovski Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/15/02 05:19 PM
Kristos Voskrese,

Actually, I disagree with both of you. I don't see the Unia as a bad thing. The way we "uniates" practice the faith is fine even with the dreaded Latinizations as they are. So we don't dress like the Orthodox, we dress like Eastern Catholics. With all due respect, OrthoMan, you don't understand it because you are not in it. HAving been Greek Orthodox for only a few years, I don't pretend in any way to understand your internal problems as well.

As I have stated before, the jurisdictional problems of the Orthodox should not apply to Catholics of any church. I feel that we Byzantines almost want to have these issues to make us appear more Orthodox. The treatment of our Roman big brothers has been no less brutal to us than that among the Orthodox with themselves.

I feel we should be careful criticizing the Unia. Dispite its problems, it is why many us are Catholic today despite old world sentiment. Our practices have developed the way they have for reasons good and bad. Although we are trying to change them back to original, I don't feel we whould label them as inapropriate in any way. After all, who are we to go to for a model? Many of the practices of our Orthodox brothers appear to be more ethnically motivated than necessarily pure "Orthodox".

At any rate, I feel we should focuss on building our own praxis that is appropriate to us. To me, this means finding the Faith as practiced by the Rusyn people at the time of the Unia. Of course, this might even mean starting to use an Old Believers' typicon!? Just my thoughts, no offense is meant..

Dmitri


Dmitri
Dear Dmitri,

You are right, no disagreement here.

Certainly, with the Unia, a new spiritual culture was started with us Eastern Catholics, although ideally our liturgical practice should be identical to that of the Orthodox.

But what Orthoman said isn't what I haven't heard from many Eastern CAtholics over the years as well.

So many great minds saying similar things MUST be right about at least a few of them. smile

Alex
Posted By: Dmitri Rostovski Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/15/02 05:33 PM
My dear Alex,

But I still disagree, our practice should not reflect that of modern Orthodox as that is not our heritage. Our heritage is the Orthodoxy of the late middle-ages. Add to that, the parxis as developed by us over time to present. That is who I feel we are. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the modern Orthodox praxis, but it is not ours. Some might argue that it never was.

Dmitri
Posted By: FAW Re: St. Sophia Cathedral-Kyiv(Kiev) - 05/15/02 05:48 PM
From the perspective of being a cradle Greek Catholic amongst those tend to favor the more Orthodox in our churches political spectrum, I can identify with the "battered wife syndrome".
The Union of Brest was a last ditch effort by the hierarchs Orthodox Church of Kyiv and the Ruthenian nation to preserve their faith and culture in the heart of a major European power that was undergoing huge religious changes, independent of the Kyivan Church.

Sometimes, I think that it would just be easier and better to just bail out to the OCA like so many of the faithful of my church in years past. I believe, like others loyal to the unia, that for good, or bad this is our church. And after all the great suffering we have endured from the Roman Catholic Church and, more recently, at the hands of the Russian Orthodox Church under Soviet persecution, to just walk out now is unimaginable, at least for me.

I doubt whether some Orthodox churches would welcome us back without trying to purge us first of all our infirmities.

ORTHOMAN- I don't feel any personal anger towards you. I, like yourself, am very opinionated and passionate over certain issues.

I try to be civil when I write. wink

Glory to Jesus Christ!
ALity
Dear Dmitri,

You raise a fascinating subject!

In fact, the liturgical Orthodox tradition of that period of the so-called "Kyivan Baroque" was common to both Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches as a (much) Latinized model.

I've thought about this for a while, and if I were to do a theological thesis in lieu of priesthood training or some such other thing that is the result of my active wishful thinking, I would do it on this subject.

My own view on this is that it is precisely because the Ukrainian Orthodox church was so Latinized (not only because of returning Eastern Catholics, but also because of influence from Orthodox students studying in Catholic centres such as Paris) that allowed periodic returns to Orthodoxy of EC's.

Ironically, what the EC founders of the Unia wanted to achieve in terms of distinctiveness from Russia and Poland, the Orthodox Church there had already achieved, and this without union with Rome.

I hear my wife calling me to get back to work. How's everything in the Pelican State?

Alex
© The Byzantine Forum