OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 08:31:14 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Kiev/Moscow Patriarch (also known as "Another thread on Ukraine")  (Read 8954 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« on: July 04, 2009, 04:50:03 AM »

I need a History Lesson here. I'm not sure if this belongs in this section or the Political section. Mods, please move as you deem appropriate.

I know that at one time Ukraine and Russia were one country, and Kiev was the capitol.

1) When did the country split into two?

2) Did the capitol move to Moscow before or after the split? If before, why?

3) When did Moscow receive its own Patriarch and why?

4) Was this before or after the capitol was moved?

5) What needs to happen for Kiev to have its own legitimate primate today?
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2009, 12:24:04 PM »

I need a History Lesson here. I'm not sure if this belongs in this section or the Political section. Mods, please move as you deem appropriate.

I know that at one time Ukraine and Russia were one country, and Kiev was the capitol.

1) When did the country split into two?

Maureen, "Russia" simply never existed as a country or nation. There was a huge mediiaeval Eastern Slavic conglomerate of principalities under the Great Prince of Kyiv (Kiev), known as "Kievan Rus." It existed between the ~6th or 7th century till the Mongol invasion of the 1340-s. After Mongols conquered much of it, the smaller part of it (what is now Volyn' and Halychyna and partially the northern and northeastern part of Ukraine, "Sivershchyna") merged with the Great Principality of Lithuania. That part from the late 1300's till the mid-1500's became the cradle of the future nations of Ukrainians and Belarussians. The bigger part of the former Kievan Rus' continued to exist under the Mongol rule and practically became one of the "uluses" (regions) of the Mongol-ruled state known as the Golden Horde. Moscow became its capital, and this "Muscovy" ("Moskoviya") became the cradle of the modern Russian nation (a mix of local Finnish tribes with people of the Eastern Slavic and of Mongol-Tatar-Middle Asian descent). The Moscow principality gradually emancipated itself from the dying Golden Horde domination, and greatly expanded in the 16th and 17th centuries. In the early 1700-s, one of the sovereins of the principality of Muscovy, Peter Romanov, ordered to call it "Rossiya" (a completely artificial name meant to sound "civilized," like Angliya, Frantsiya, Gollandiya etc.).   

2) Did the capitol move to Moscow before or after the split? If before, why?

Moscow was the seat of the Moscow high prince since the mid-12th century, but the soveregnty of that prince was, of course, subordinate to the power of the Great Prince of Kyiv till the destruction of Kyiv by the Mongols. Under the Mongol domination, there were several capitals of several more or less powerful Eastern Slavic high princes - Novgorod (prince Alexander Nevsky's capital), then Vladimir, and Suzdal'. Moscow became the capital of the Great Principality of Muscovy, which subjugated all other eastern Slavic princes (EXCEPT those whose domains were inside the Great Principality of Lithuania) under Ivan Kalita or Ivan I, in the late 14th - early 15th century. 

3) When did Moscow receive its own Patriarch and why?

I believe it happened around the time of the Florentine "Unia" - because the bishops in the Great Principality of Muscovy were angry at these heretic Greeks.

5) What needs to happen for Kiev to have its own legitimate primate today?

The Kremlin should stop spending trillions of oil and gas dollars to support the anti-Ukrainian hysteria on the Ukrainian territory and beyond. The rest will work out just fine.
Logged

Love never fails.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2009, 06:21:45 PM »

I need a History Lesson here. I'm not sure if this belongs in this section or the Political section. Mods, please move as you deem appropriate.

I know that at one time Ukraine and Russia were one country, and Kiev was the capitol.

1) When did the country split into two?

It didn't:the central principality of the Rus, Kiev, had declined with the decline (and sack) of Constantinople, its main trading, cultural etc. partner.  The end came as capital in 1240 when the Mongols destroyed the city.  But the state had always been an appanage state, in which local princes rotated (by succession or sword) on the various thrones of the realm, including that of the Grand Prince of Kiev.  Two former Grand Princes sat on the throne after Kiev's sacking (princes were often driven from, and returned to, the various thrones, including Kiev).

Taking 1240 as a conventional date:

St. Maximus, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus (1285–1305) left Kiev for Vladimir in 1299, transferring the see there while keeping the metropolitan title.  His predecessor Petro Akerovych (1241–1246) took part in the union scheme at Lyons, and for that reason perhaps doesn't appear on some lists of primates of Kiev (I don't know anything on an intervening Cyril III (1247-1281)) This line moved to Moscow with St. Peter in 1325 and became autocephalous in 1442 when Constantinople appostacized and the Russians threw out the apostate Isodore that Constantinople had sent and who had tried to impose the council of Florence on the Orthodox Rus.  It became the Patriarchate of Moscow and All Russia in 1589.  This all had paralleled secular developments:Vladimir II Monomach Grand Prince of Kiev (1113-1125) had consolidated his power in the principality of Rostov-Suzdal-Vladimir (uniting them, moving his capital to Suzdal from Rostov, and (re)founding Vladimir) as his patrimony before becoming Grand Prince of Kiev, and (according to legend) acquiring the crown Monomokh's cap from his grandfather, the Emperor in Constantinople. (his son Mstislav,the last ruler of united Rus, succeeded him, and upon his death, as the chronicler put it, "the land of Rus was torn apart"). His son George (1099-1157), also in turn Prince of his father's lands and Grand Prince of Kiev, moved the capital to Vladimir, and fortified and founded Moscow as a city.  His son, St. Andrew the Pious, actually sacked Kiev in 1169, and instead of assuming the title of Grand Prince there, installed his brother there as his vassal, the throne there going back and forth with claimants from Halych-Volhynia.  These dynastic struggles continued until the Mongols came, who appointed Princes of Vladimir who, however, did not move to the capital but stayed in their own patrimony's capital, any of the 11 which George's descendants had carved out of the orinal land of Vladimir Monomokh.  St. Mikhail of Tver broke with the Mongols, adopted the titleTsar, and took over Vladimir in 1304.  Mikhail had unfortunately nominated someone else as Metropolitan of Kiev, and when St. Peter, nominated by the ruler of Halych-Volhynia, was consecrated by Constantinople, St. Peter threw his support behind Yuriy of Moscow, Michael's second cousin.   Ivan III of Moscow, the great-great-great-grandson of Yuriy's brother Ivan I, Grand Prince of Vladimir and Moscow, married into the (defunct) imperial family of Constantinople and took the title of Tsar. In 1547 his grandson Ivan III Grand Prince/Duke (the title is the same as that of Kiev in Slavonic) of Moscow was recognized as Tsar "king/emperor" of all the Rus by Constantinople.

For a score card:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rulers_of_Russia_family_tree

In 1136 Novogorod, whence the dynasty of Rurik that ruled Kievan Rus first came to rule, dismissed its prince sent by the Rurikids from Kiev.  Thereafter the city arrogated to itself the right to choose its prince.  Not conquered by the Mongols, it none the less paid tribute to them through Moscow.  Dependent on Moscow for grain to feed Novgorod's population, Moscow annexed the city in 1478, putting an end to its practice of choosing princes from the Rurikids, and incorporating it in the Rus led by Moscow.

The Rurikids did not only survive in Moscow: in Halych (now the core of the hot bed of Ukrainian nationalism, in the North West) two lines ruled in succession.  The first sprang from Vladimir, the eldest son of Yaroslav I the Wise Grand Prince of Kiev, who ruled in Novgorod but predeceased his father, hence his son Rostislav lost his patrimony of Rostov and became landless until his uncles, all Princes of Kiev in succession, installed him in Halych/Galicia. Roman, son of Mystislav II of Kiev and Agnes of Poland, ruled Novogorod and then inherited Volodymyr-Volynsky/Volhynia, coming from a line that had sat on the thrones of Rostov, Novgorod, Volyn and Kiev, and, when Vladimir's line in Halych died out, took over Halych, uniting it into Halych-Volhynia in 1199.  In 1202 he took Kiev and became Grand Prince of Kiev.  At his death in 1205, at the hands of his former Polish and Czech allies, his lands became a vacuum into which the Poles, Lithuanians, Hungarians and Czechs came in, until his son Danylo united Halych-Volhynia and Kiev once again in 1239, only to lose Kiev in its sacking, to be succeeded there by a former Grand Prince, his brother in law Michael of Chernigov (himself ruler in succession, among others, of Novgorod and Halych besides Kiev, and a member not only of the Rurikids of Rus' but also the Piasts of Poland (being Danylo's second cousin through Agnes of Poland), the Árpáds of Hungary, the P?emyslids of Bohemia and Moravia), who was martyred by the Tartars in the East (he refused to worship Genghis Khan).  Yaroslav III of Novgorod then returned (he had first left Novgorod on the advice of Danylo to go to the throne of Kiev in 1236) to resume the title of Grand Prince of Kiev.  In the meantime Danylo had secured the crown as king of Halych-Volhynia from the pope of Rome, but the ruins of Kiev remained in Mongol hands.  In Latin his line claimed to be "Rex Rusie [sic]", and in Latin the term "Ruthenia" becomes interchangeable with "Rusia" hence Ruthenia. The claim is made that Constantinople established a second Metropolitan of Kiev in Halych in 1303, but the reports are contradictory. Danylo founded the city Lviv and named it after his son Lev, who moved the capital to there.  Another son, John/Svarn, married the daughter of Lithuania's first (and only) king Mindaugas.  When Mindaugas' son and successor Vaišvilkas, baptized into the Orthodox Church, resumed the monastic life,  he turned the Duchy of Lithunia over to John.  Traidenis, a pagan usurper (whose brothers, however, were Orthodox), overthrew and killed John and dragged Lithuania back into paganism (following Mindaugas, who seems to have reverted-if he ever left-paganism after receiving the crown and baptism from the pope of Rome). In the meantime, Lev's son Yurij/George I succeeded him, and his sons Andrew (ruling from Volodymyr in Volhynia) and Lev II (ruling from Galicia) fought off the Tartars and Lithuanians, until falling in battle in 1323.  Their nephew Boleslaw-Yuri II of the Piasts was chosen to succeed them-if he embraced Orthodoxy-but poisoned by Orthodox boyars when they suspected he went back to the Vatican, starting the Galicia-Volhynia Wars.  Boleslaw had been betrothed to the daughter of Gediminas, the King (or Duke, the title was disputed) of Lithuania (he married another daughter off to the Rurikids in Moscow), another son-in-law of Gediminas Casimir III Piast of Poland, died as the last king of that line, succeeded by his nephew King Louis of Hungary, and in turn by Louis' daughter Jedwiga.  Poland made a proposal to Jogaila of Lithuania, whose Russian Orthodox mother, Uliana of Tver and Halych, had intended him to marry Sophia of Moscow.  With the marriage of Jogaila and Jedwiga, the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania was born, to Halych-Volhynia's detriment.  By the time dust of the Galicia-Volhynia Wars dust settled in 1392, Poland got Galicia/Halych and Lithuania had gotten Volhynia.  Galicia was never in union with Kiev again until Stalin annexed it to Soviet Ukraine.

The fate of the city of Polotsk and Belarus, not part of Ukraine, relates to your question.  Polotsk was ruled by its own Varangian dynasty, who shared the same Nordic origins as the Rurikids, and formed the union of the Slavic Krivichi. When its ruler Rogvolod gave his daughter Rogneda to the rival of the future St. Vladmir, Vladimir sacked the city and took the princess by force.  When he divorced her on baptism to take the imperial princess Anna of Constantinople, she returned to Polotsk with her and Vladimir's son Izyaslau as ruler (she herself went into the convent with the name Anastasia).  Since Izyaslau predeceased his father, the House of Polotsk lost rights to succeed at Kiev.  His son Bryachislav and his descendant made up by asserting their autonomy from Kiev, colonizing Latvia and Lithuania, and using Lithuanians as auxilaries in their armies.  Gemindinas of Lithuania, himself of disputed Rurikid origins, married Jewna of Polotsk, and by intermarriage and conquest of Halych-Volhynia, he assumed the title "Gedeminne Dei gratia Letwinorum et multorum Ruthenorum rex" Gediminas, by the grace of God King of the Lithuanians and many Russians/Ruthenians," annexing Polotsk in 1307, and in the 1320's annexing Halych-Volhynia by his marriage ties to its dynasty (including his daughter's marriage to its last king Andrew), and installing his brother Fiodor at Kiev, and adopting the local variant of East Slavic as its official language, which it served as until 1696.

In short, Kievan Rus was a loose federation with a nominal head, which, when that head was removed, left several regional successors who claimed to represent the whole patrimony.  As such, I say it never split in two, because the parts, Moscow and Galicia, claimed to be the whole. On that basis Moscow took over Novgorod, and Lithuania inherited Galicia and Polotsk's claims.  While Lithuania ruled Kiev, and Poland Galicia, Kiev and Galicia claimed to be Rus'/Ruthenian and were spoken as such.  Moscow's dynasty, the sole survivors of the Rurikid House of Kiev, claimed that Kiev and Galicia were occupied territory.  Only with the ascension in 1633 of Met. Peter Movila/Mohyla as Metropolitan of Kiev, Halych and All Rus', a Romanian-Hungarian loyal to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth but determined to restoring and perserving Orthodoxy within it do we see a dividing opposition to Russia, Met. Peter styling himself as the successor to St. Vladimir.  This continues with the Hetmanate, which however throws its lot in with the Russian Tsar as successor in 1654.



Quote
2) Did the capitol move to Moscow before or after the split? If before, why?

Like Old and New Rome, Kiev retained its prestige after its actual importance had disappeared. So its primate had to live in Moscow when Kiev was unsafe, but he kept the old title.


Quote
3) When did Moscow receive its own Patriarch and why?

In 1589, because Third Rome was the only Orthodox power standing.


Quote
4) Was this before or after the capitol was moved?

After all the rest had fallen, and Moscow was left standing as sole remaining capital.



Quote
5) What needs to happen for Kiev to have its own legitimate primate today?

Things be settled between Moscow, and between Moscow and Constantinople.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2009, 07:28:58 PM »

I need a History Lesson here. I'm not sure if this belongs in this section or the Political section. Mods, please move as you deem appropriate.

I know that at one time Ukraine and Russia were one country, and Kiev was the capitol.

1) When did the country split into two?

Maureen, "Russia" simply never existed as a country or nation.

LOL.  I dare say, if it never existed, it would bother you far less.

Quote
There was a huge mediiaeval Eastern Slavic conglomerate of principalities under the Great Prince of Kyiv (Kiev), known as "Kievan Rus." It existed between the ~6th or 7th century till the Mongol invasion of the 1340-s. After Mongols conquered much of it, the smaller part of it (what is now Volyn' and Halychyna and partially the northern and northeastern part of Ukraine, "Sivershchyna") merged with the Great Principality of Lithuania. That part from the late 1300's till the mid-1500's became the cradle of the future nations of Ukrainians and Belarussians. The bigger part of the former Kievan Rus' continued to exist under the Mongol rule and practically became one of the "uluses" (regions) of the Mongol-ruled state known as the Golden Horde. Moscow became its capital, and this "Muscovy" ("Moskoviya") became the cradle of the modern Russian nation (a mix of local Finnish tribes with people of the Eastern Slavic and of Mongol-Tatar-Middle Asian descent).

Rather fixated on this genetic stuff, particularly the Finno-Uralics.  You do know, that there was quite a mix with the Turkic peoples with the peoples in present day Ukraine: Kiev was a vassal of the Turkic Khazars when the Rurikids came down and took over expanded the Rus' state there?


Quote
The Moscow principality gradually emancipated itself from the dying Golden Horde domination, and greatly expanded in the 16th and 17th centuries. In the early 1700-s, one of the sovereins of the principality of Muscovy,

He was Царь Всея Руси King of All Rus'.


Quote
Peter Romanov, ordered to call it "Rossiya" (a completely artificial name meant to sound "civilized," like Angliya, Frantsiya, Gollandiya etc.).

The name had already existed in Greek, Latin, etc. long before Russian (or rather, Slavonic) adopted it.

2) Did the capitol move to Moscow before or after the split? If before, why?

Moscow was the seat of the Moscow high prince since the mid-12th century, but the soveregnty of that prince was, of course, subordinate to the power of the Great Prince of Kyiv till the destruction of Kyiv by the Mongols. Under the Mongol domination, there were several capitals of several more or less powerful Eastern Slavic high princes - Novgorod (prince Alexander Nevsky's capital), then Vladimir, and Suzdal'. Moscow became the capital of the Great Principality of Muscovy, which subjugated all other eastern Slavic princes (EXCEPT those whose domains were inside the Great Principality of Lithuania) under Ivan Kalita or Ivan I, in the late 14th - early 15th century.


By the time Moscow became the capital of anything, Kiev had ceased to rule anything.  Daniel, born in 1261 was the first prince of Moscow, twenty years after Kiev was destroyed.


3) When did Moscow receive its own Patriarch and why?

I believe it happened around the time of the Florentine "Unia" - because the bishops in the Great Principality of Muscovy were angry at these heretic Greeks.

No.  Moscow, or rather Kiev, became autocephalous at the time.  The Patriachate didn't arise until a century later, after the Great Prince of Moscow became the Czar of All Russia, on that see
http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/12898/1/12898.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?id=JyndwOrYcZUC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=Job+patriarch+of+Moscow&source=bl&ots=LWpS9TaLch&sig=OkANBBNDKUj7Bsr9IlL2svttL5w&hl=en&ei=6eRPSpz5Ecz6tgfQm9jeDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

5) What needs to happen for Kiev to have its own legitimate primate today?

The Kremlin should stop spending trillions of oil and gas dollars to support the anti-Ukrainian hysteria on the Ukrainian territory and beyond. The rest will work out just fine.

LOL.  Sounds like the Zionist blaming Palestinian and Arab nationalism on petro-dollars.

To answer the question, the North West, Old Galicia, is going to have to stop trying to impose its ideas on the rest of the country.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2009, 11:14:47 PM »


Lile I said before, Isa, they use you for free.

I need a History Lesson here. I'm not sure if this belongs in this section or the Political section. Mods, please move as you deem appropriate.

I know that at one time Ukraine and Russia were one country, and Kiev was the capitol.

1) When did the country split into two?

Maureen, "Russia" simply never existed as a country or nation.

LOL.  I dare say, if it never existed, it would bother you far less.

Quote
There was a huge mediiaeval Eastern Slavic conglomerate of principalities under the Great Prince of Kyiv (Kiev), known as "Kievan Rus." It existed between the ~6th or 7th century till the Mongol invasion of the 1340-s. After Mongols conquered much of it, the smaller part of it (what is now Volyn' and Halychyna and partially the northern and northeastern part of Ukraine, "Sivershchyna") merged with the Great Principality of Lithuania. That part from the late 1300's till the mid-1500's became the cradle of the future nations of Ukrainians and Belarussians. The bigger part of the former Kievan Rus' continued to exist under the Mongol rule and practically became one of the "uluses" (regions) of the Mongol-ruled state known as the Golden Horde. Moscow became its capital, and this "Muscovy" ("Moskoviya") became the cradle of the modern Russian nation (a mix of local Finnish tribes with people of the Eastern Slavic and of Mongol-Tatar-Middle Asian descent).

Rather fixated on this genetic stuff, particularly the Finno-Uralics.  You do know, that there was quite a mix with the Turkic peoples with the peoples in present day Ukraine: Kiev was a vassal of the Turkic Khazars when the Rurikids came down and took over expanded the Rus' state there?


Quote
The Moscow principality gradually emancipated itself from the dying Golden Horde domination, and greatly expanded in the 16th and 17th centuries. In the early 1700-s, one of the sovereins of the principality of Muscovy,

He was Царь Всея Руси King of All Rus'.


Quote
Peter Romanov, ordered to call it "Rossiya" (a completely artificial name meant to sound "civilized," like Angliya, Frantsiya, Gollandiya etc.).

The name had already existed in Greek, Latin, etc. long before Russian (or rather, Slavonic) adopted it.

2) Did the capitol move to Moscow before or after the split? If before, why?

Moscow was the seat of the Moscow high prince since the mid-12th century, but the soveregnty of that prince was, of course, subordinate to the power of the Great Prince of Kyiv till the destruction of Kyiv by the Mongols. Under the Mongol domination, there were several capitals of several more or less powerful Eastern Slavic high princes - Novgorod (prince Alexander Nevsky's capital), then Vladimir, and Suzdal'. Moscow became the capital of the Great Principality of Muscovy, which subjugated all other eastern Slavic princes (EXCEPT those whose domains were inside the Great Principality of Lithuania) under Ivan Kalita or Ivan I, in the late 14th - early 15th century.


By the time Moscow became the capital of anything, Kiev had ceased to rule anything.  Daniel, born in 1261 was the first prince of Moscow, twenty years after Kiev was destroyed.


3) When did Moscow receive its own Patriarch and why?

I believe it happened around the time of the Florentine "Unia" - because the bishops in the Great Principality of Muscovy were angry at these heretic Greeks.

No.  Moscow, or rather Kiev, became autocephalous at the time.  The Patriachate didn't arise until a century later, after the Great Prince of Moscow became the Czar of All Russia, on that see
http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/12898/1/12898.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?id=JyndwOrYcZUC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=Job+patriarch+of+Moscow&source=bl&ots=LWpS9TaLch&sig=OkANBBNDKUj7Bsr9IlL2svttL5w&hl=en&ei=6eRPSpz5Ecz6tgfQm9jeDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

5) What needs to happen for Kiev to have its own legitimate primate today?

The Kremlin should stop spending trillions of oil and gas dollars to support the anti-Ukrainian hysteria on the Ukrainian territory and beyond. The rest will work out just fine.

LOL.  Sounds like the Zionist blaming Palestinian and Arab nationalism on petro-dollars.

To answer the question, the North West, Old Galicia, is going to have to stop trying to impose its ideas on the rest of the country.
Logged

Love never fails.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2009, 12:51:41 AM »


Lile I said before, Isa, they use you for free.

I need a History Lesson here. I'm not sure if this belongs in this section or the Political section. Mods, please move as you deem appropriate.

I know that at one time Ukraine and Russia were one country, and Kiev was the capitol.

1) When did the country split into two?

Maureen, "Russia" simply never existed as a country or nation.

LOL.  I dare say, if it never existed, it would bother you far less.

Quote
There was a huge mediiaeval Eastern Slavic conglomerate of principalities under the Great Prince of Kyiv (Kiev), known as "Kievan Rus." It existed between the ~6th or 7th century till the Mongol invasion of the 1340-s. After Mongols conquered much of it, the smaller part of it (what is now Volyn' and Halychyna and partially the northern and northeastern part of Ukraine, "Sivershchyna") merged with the Great Principality of Lithuania. That part from the late 1300's till the mid-1500's became the cradle of the future nations of Ukrainians and Belarussians. The bigger part of the former Kievan Rus' continued to exist under the Mongol rule and practically became one of the "uluses" (regions) of the Mongol-ruled state known as the Golden Horde. Moscow became its capital, and this "Muscovy" ("Moskoviya") became the cradle of the modern Russian nation (a mix of local Finnish tribes with people of the Eastern Slavic and of Mongol-Tatar-Middle Asian descent).

Rather fixated on this genetic stuff, particularly the Finno-Uralics.  You do know, that there was quite a mix with the Turkic peoples with the peoples in present day Ukraine: Kiev was a vassal of the Turkic Khazars when the Rurikids came down and took over expanded the Rus' state there?


Quote
The Moscow principality gradually emancipated itself from the dying Golden Horde domination, and greatly expanded in the 16th and 17th centuries. In the early 1700-s, one of the sovereins of the principality of Muscovy,

He was Царь Всея Руси King of All Rus'.


Quote
Peter Romanov, ordered to call it "Rossiya" (a completely artificial name meant to sound "civilized," like Angliya, Frantsiya, Gollandiya etc.).

The name had already existed in Greek, Latin, etc. long before Russian (or rather, Slavonic) adopted it.

2) Did the capitol move to Moscow before or after the split? If before, why?

Moscow was the seat of the Moscow high prince since the mid-12th century, but the soveregnty of that prince was, of course, subordinate to the power of the Great Prince of Kyiv till the destruction of Kyiv by the Mongols. Under the Mongol domination, there were several capitals of several more or less powerful Eastern Slavic high princes - Novgorod (prince Alexander Nevsky's capital), then Vladimir, and Suzdal'. Moscow became the capital of the Great Principality of Muscovy, which subjugated all other eastern Slavic princes (EXCEPT those whose domains were inside the Great Principality of Lithuania) under Ivan Kalita or Ivan I, in the late 14th - early 15th century.


By the time Moscow became the capital of anything, Kiev had ceased to rule anything.  Daniel, born in 1261 was the first prince of Moscow, twenty years after Kiev was destroyed.


3) When did Moscow receive its own Patriarch and why?

I believe it happened around the time of the Florentine "Unia" - because the bishops in the Great Principality of Muscovy were angry at these heretic Greeks.

No.  Moscow, or rather Kiev, became autocephalous at the time.  The Patriachate didn't arise until a century later, after the Great Prince of Moscow became the Czar of All Russia, on that see
http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/12898/1/12898.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?id=JyndwOrYcZUC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=Job+patriarch+of+Moscow&source=bl&ots=LWpS9TaLch&sig=OkANBBNDKUj7Bsr9IlL2svttL5w&hl=en&ei=6eRPSpz5Ecz6tgfQm9jeDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

5) What needs to happen for Kiev to have its own legitimate primate today?

The Kremlin should stop spending trillions of oil and gas dollars to support the anti-Ukrainian hysteria on the Ukrainian territory and beyond. The rest will work out just fine.

LOL.  Sounds like the Zionist blaming Palestinian and Arab nationalism on petro-dollars.

To answer the question, the North West, Old Galicia, is going to have to stop trying to impose its ideas on the rest of the country.

LOL. So you keep asserting.  Is it our fault (whoever "we" are) that history is on our side?

Related to, but not identical to, the OP's question is the establishment of the seperate languages out of Church Slavonic (the Patriachate of Moscow's recension standardized in Kiev and Smolensk).

Belarussian comes first, since its adoption in the Lithuanian chancellory in Medieval times.

Russian doesn't truly appear until early modern times c. 1800.  Ukrainian followed shortly thereafter (indeed, many authors contributed to the establishment of both).

Rusyn/Capatho-Russian perhaps had not yet established itself, but it began to do so after Ukrainian.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2009, 03:45:25 PM »


Maureen, "Russia" simply never existed as a country or nation. There was a huge mediiaeval Eastern Slavic conglomerate of principalities under the Great Prince of Kyiv (Kiev), known as "Kievan Rus." It existed between the ~6th or 7th century till the Mongol invasion of the 1340-s. After Mongols conquered much of it, the smaller part of it (what is now Volyn' and Halychyna and partially the northern and northeastern part of Ukraine, "Sivershchyna") merged with the Great Principality of Lithuania. That part from the late 1300's till the mid-1500's became the cradle of the future nations of Ukrainians and Belarussians. The bigger part of the former Kievan Rus' continued to exist under the Mongol rule and practically became one of the "uluses" (regions) of the Mongol-ruled state known as the Golden Horde...

I woouldn't say that. The obedience to Kiev was alwaus disputed. There were many battles about it (like Battle over Nemiga). The term Kievan Rus is a historians name. The ccountry was called Rus' Khaganate.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2009, 03:45:47 PM by mike » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2009, 05:52:38 PM »


Maureen, "Russia" simply never existed as a country or nation. There was a huge mediiaeval Eastern Slavic conglomerate of principalities under the Great Prince of Kyiv (Kiev), known as "Kievan Rus." It existed between the ~6th or 7th century till the Mongol invasion of the 1340-s. After Mongols conquered much of it, the smaller part of it (what is now Volyn' and Halychyna and partially the northern and northeastern part of Ukraine, "Sivershchyna") merged with the Great Principality of Lithuania. That part from the late 1300's till the mid-1500's became the cradle of the future nations of Ukrainians and Belarussians. The bigger part of the former Kievan Rus' continued to exist under the Mongol rule and practically became one of the "uluses" (regions) of the Mongol-ruled state known as the Golden Horde...

I woouldn't say that. The obedience to Kiev was alwaus disputed. There were many battles about it (like Battle over Nemiga). The term Kievan Rus is a historians name. The ccountry was called Rus' Khaganate.


LOL.  Now you have opened a can of worms.....
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2009, 06:15:46 PM »

I'm sorry. I don't like generalising.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2010, 10:53:18 AM »

I need a History Lesson here. I'm not sure if this belongs in this section or the Political section. Mods, please move as you deem appropriate.

I know that at one time Ukraine and Russia were one country, and Kiev was the capitol.

1) When did the country split into two?

It didn't:the central principality of the Rus, Kiev, had declined with the decline (and sack) of Constantinople, its main trading, cultural etc. partner.  The end came as capital in 1240 when the Mongols destroyed the city.  But the state had always been an appanage state, in which local princes rotated (by succession or sword) on the various thrones of the realm, including that of the Grand Prince of Kiev.  Two former Grand Princes sat on the throne after Kiev's sacking (princes were often driven from, and returned to, the various thrones, including Kiev).

Taking 1240 as a conventional date:

St. Maximus, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus (1285–1305) left Kiev for Vladimir in 1299, transferring the see there while keeping the metropolitan title.  His predecessor Petro Akerovych (1241–1246) took part in the union scheme at Lyons, and for that reason perhaps doesn't appear on some lists of primates of Kiev (I don't know anything on an intervening Cyril III (1247-1281)) This line moved to Moscow with St. Peter in 1325 and became autocephalous in 1442 when Constantinople appostacized and the Russians threw out the apostate Isodore that Constantinople had sent and who had tried to impose the council of Florence on the Orthodox Rus.  It became the Patriarchate of Moscow and All Russia in 1589.  This all had paralleled secular developments:Vladimir II Monomach Grand Prince of Kiev (1113-1125) had consolidated his power in the principality of Rostov-Suzdal-Vladimir (uniting them, moving his capital to Suzdal from Rostov, and (re)founding Vladimir) as his patrimony before becoming Grand Prince of Kiev, and (according to legend) acquiring the crown Monomokh's cap from his grandfather, the Emperor in Constantinople. (his son Mstislav,the last ruler of united Rus, succeeded him, and upon his death, as the chronicler put it, "the land of Rus was torn apart"). His son George (1099-1157), also in turn Prince of his father's lands and Grand Prince of Kiev, moved the capital to Vladimir, and fortified and founded Moscow as a city.  His son, St. Andrew the Pious, actually sacked Kiev in 1169, and instead of assuming the title of Grand Prince there, installed his brother there as his vassal, the throne there going back and forth with claimants from Halych-Volhynia.  These dynastic struggles continued until the Mongols came, who appointed Princes of Vladimir who, however, did not move to the capital but stayed in their own patrimony's capital, any of the 11 which George's descendants had carved out of the orinal land of Vladimir Monomokh.  St. Mikhail of Tver broke with the Mongols, adopted the titleTsar, and took over Vladimir in 1304.  Mikhail had unfortunately nominated someone else as Metropolitan of Kiev, and when St. Peter, nominated by the ruler of Halych-Volhynia, was consecrated by Constantinople, St. Peter threw his support behind Yuriy of Moscow, Michael's second cousin.   Ivan III of Moscow, the great-great-great-grandson of Yuriy's brother Ivan I, Grand Prince of Vladimir and Moscow, married into the (defunct) imperial family of Constantinople and took the title of Tsar. In 1547 his grandson Ivan III Grand Prince/Duke (the title is the same as that of Kiev in Slavonic) of Moscow was recognized as Tsar "king/emperor" of all the Rus by Constantinople.

For a score card:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rulers_of_Russia_family_tree

In 1136 Novogorod, whence the dynasty of Rurik that ruled Kievan Rus first came to rule, dismissed its prince sent by the Rurikids from Kiev.  Thereafter the city arrogated to itself the right to choose its prince.  Not conquered by the Mongols, it none the less paid tribute to them through Moscow.  Dependent on Moscow for grain to feed Novgorod's population, Moscow annexed the city in 1478, putting an end to its practice of choosing princes from the Rurikids, and incorporating it in the Rus led by Moscow.

The Rurikids did not only survive in Moscow: in Halych (now the core of the hot bed of Ukrainian nationalism, in the North West) two lines ruled in succession.  The first sprang from Vladimir, the eldest son of Yaroslav I the Wise Grand Prince of Kiev, who ruled in Novgorod but predeceased his father, hence his son Rostislav lost his patrimony of Rostov and became landless until his uncles, all Princes of Kiev in succession, installed him in Halych/Galicia. Roman, son of Mystislav II of Kiev and Agnes of Poland, ruled Novogorod and then inherited Volodymyr-Volynsky/Volhynia, coming from a line that had sat on the thrones of Rostov, Novgorod, Volyn and Kiev, and, when Vladimir's line in Halych died out, took over Halych, uniting it into Halych-Volhynia in 1199.  In 1202 he took Kiev and became Grand Prince of Kiev.  At his death in 1205, at the hands of his former Polish and Czech allies, his lands became a vacuum into which the Poles, Lithuanians, Hungarians and Czechs came in, until his son Danylo united Halych-Volhynia and Kiev once again in 1239, only to lose Kiev in its sacking, to be succeeded there by a former Grand Prince, his brother in law Michael of Chernigov (himself ruler in succession, among others, of Novgorod and Halych besides Kiev, and a member not only of the Rurikids of Rus' but also the Piasts of Poland (being Danylo's second cousin through Agnes of Poland), the Árpáds of Hungary, the P?emyslids of Bohemia and Moravia), who was martyred by the Tartars in the East (he refused to worship Genghis Khan).  Yaroslav III of Novgorod then returned (he had first left Novgorod on the advice of Danylo to go to the throne of Kiev in 1236) to resume the title of Grand Prince of Kiev.  In the meantime Danylo had secured the crown as king of Halych-Volhynia from the pope of Rome, but the ruins of Kiev remained in Mongol hands.  In Latin his line claimed to be "Rex Rusie [sic]", and in Latin the term "Ruthenia" becomes interchangeable with "Rusia" hence Ruthenia. The claim is made that Constantinople established a second Metropolitan of Kiev in Halych in 1303, but the reports are contradictory. Danylo founded the city Lviv and named it after his son Lev, who moved the capital to there.  Another son, John/Svarn, married the daughter of Lithuania's first (and only) king Mindaugas.  When Mindaugas' son and successor Vaišvilkas, baptized into the Orthodox Church, resumed the monastic life,  he turned the Duchy of Lithunia over to John.  Traidenis, a pagan usurper (whose brothers, however, were Orthodox), overthrew and killed John and dragged Lithuania back into paganism (following Mindaugas, who seems to have reverted-if he ever left-paganism after receiving the crown and baptism from the pope of Rome). In the meantime, Lev's son Yurij/George I succeeded him, and his sons Andrew (ruling from Volodymyr in Volhynia) and Lev II (ruling from Galicia) fought off the Tartars and Lithuanians, until falling in battle in 1323.  Their nephew Boleslaw-Yuri II of the Piasts was chosen to succeed them-if he embraced Orthodoxy-but poisoned by Orthodox boyars when they suspected he went back to the Vatican, starting the Galicia-Volhynia Wars.  Boleslaw had been betrothed to the daughter of Gediminas, the King (or Duke, the title was disputed) of Lithuania (he married another daughter off to the Rurikids in Moscow), another son-in-law of Gediminas Casimir III Piast of Poland, died as the last king of that line, succeeded by his nephew King Louis of Hungary, and in turn by Louis' daughter Jedwiga.  Poland made a proposal to Jogaila of Lithuania, whose Russian Orthodox mother, Uliana of Tver and Halych, had intended him to marry Sophia of Moscow.  With the marriage of Jogaila and Jedwiga, the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania was born, to Halych-Volhynia's detriment.  By the time dust of the Galicia-Volhynia Wars dust settled in 1392, Poland got Galicia/Halych and Lithuania had gotten Volhynia.  Galicia was never in union with Kiev again until Stalin annexed it to Soviet Ukraine.

The fate of the city of Polotsk and Belarus, not part of Ukraine, relates to your question.  Polotsk was ruled by its own Varangian dynasty, who shared the same Nordic origins as the Rurikids, and formed the union of the Slavic Krivichi. When its ruler Rogvolod gave his daughter Rogneda to the rival of the future St. Vladmir, Vladimir sacked the city and took the princess by force.  When he divorced her on baptism to take the imperial princess Anna of Constantinople, she returned to Polotsk with her and Vladimir's son Izyaslau as ruler (she herself went into the convent with the name Anastasia).  Since Izyaslau predeceased his father, the House of Polotsk lost rights to succeed at Kiev.  His son Bryachislav and his descendant made up by asserting their autonomy from Kiev, colonizing Latvia and Lithuania, and using Lithuanians as auxilaries in their armies.  Gemindinas of Lithuania, himself of disputed Rurikid origins, married Jewna of Polotsk, and by intermarriage and conquest of Halych-Volhynia, he assumed the title "Gedeminne Dei gratia Letwinorum et multorum Ruthenorum rex" Gediminas, by the grace of God King of the Lithuanians and many Russians/Ruthenians," annexing Polotsk in 1307, and in the 1320's annexing Halych-Volhynia by his marriage ties to its dynasty (including his daughter's marriage to its last king Andrew), and installing his brother Fiodor at Kiev, and adopting the local variant of East Slavic as its official language, which it served as until 1696.

In short, Kievan Rus was a loose federation with a nominal head, which, when that head was removed, left several regional successors who claimed to represent the whole patrimony.  As such, I say it never split in two, because the parts, Moscow and Galicia, claimed to be the whole. On that basis Moscow took over Novgorod, and Lithuania inherited Galicia and Polotsk's claims.  While Lithuania ruled Kiev, and Poland Galicia, Kiev and Galicia claimed to be Rus'/Ruthenian and were spoken as such.  Moscow's dynasty, the sole survivors of the Rurikid House of Kiev, claimed that Kiev and Galicia were occupied territory.  Only with the ascension in 1633 of Met. Peter Movila/Mohyla as Metropolitan of Kiev, Halych and All Rus', a Romanian-Hungarian loyal to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth but determined to restoring and perserving Orthodoxy within it do we see a dividing opposition to Russia, Met. Peter styling himself as the successor to St. Vladimir.  This continues with the Hetmanate, which however throws its lot in with the Russian Tsar as successor in 1654.



Quote
2) Did the capitol move to Moscow before or after the split? If before, why?

Like Old and New Rome, Kiev retained its prestige after its actual importance had disappeared. So its primate had to live in Moscow when Kiev was unsafe, but he kept the old title.


Quote
3) When did Moscow receive its own Patriarch and why?

In 1589, because Third Rome was the only Orthodox power standing.


Quote
4) Was this before or after the capitol was moved?

After all the rest had fallen, and Moscow was left standing as sole remaining capital.



Quote
5) What needs to happen for Kiev to have its own legitimate primate today?

Things be settled between Moscow, and between Moscow and Constantinople.

I just came across a cool map, illustrating the above:

http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/kievan_rus_map2.gif
« Last Edit: January 12, 2010, 10:53:58 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2010, 03:51:33 AM »

Does anybody understand that there already is a legitimate Ukrainian Orthodox Church?  It is an autonomous local Church (meaning that it is free in all things except that its primate must be approved by the MP).  This Church seems to be almost completely ignored by those who clamor for a "Ukrainian Church".  Should not all Ukrainian Churches abroad place themselves under the canonical leadership of Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev who is the spiritual father of all Orthodox Ukrainians?

Of course the UOC-MP may be unacceptable to some Ukrainians because they continue to hold onto the universal attributes of Slavic Orthodoxy, like Church Slavonic instead of modern Ukrainian.  They also see the Church as a primarily spiritual institution and not as a political party and anti Russian agency.  Either way, it and only it is the heir apparent to legitimate Ukrainian Orthodoxy and no other group can claim that authority.
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,812


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2010, 12:44:58 PM »

This thread is opening a can of worms. Perhaps it will be a welcome diversion from what's going on in the Ecumenism threads!
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2010, 01:31:23 PM »

I just saw yesterday that the OCA has put the Church of Ukraine on as a seperate/autonomous Church, which I take as a good sign.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,812


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 27, 2010, 02:11:50 PM »

We all should pray for a solution to the mess in Ukraine. The longer the conflicts continues, the greater opportunity for non-Orthodox, non-Eastern evangelism to prosper. Many of the recent Ukrainian immigrants to my area are Protestant, but send their kids to Ukrainian school at the UGCC.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 27, 2010, 02:12:49 PM »

Does anybody understand that there already is a legitimate Ukrainian Orthodox Church?  It is an autonomous local Church (meaning that it is free in all things except that its primate must be approved by the MP).  This Church seems to be almost completely ignored by those who clamor for a "Ukrainian Church".  Should not all Ukrainian Churches abroad place themselves under the canonical leadership of Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev who is the spiritual father of all Orthodox Ukrainians?

Of course the UOC-MP may be unacceptable to some Ukrainians because they continue to hold onto the universal attributes of Slavic Orthodoxy, like Church Slavonic instead of modern Ukrainian.  They also see the Church as a primarily spiritual institution and not as a political party and anti Russian agency.  Either way, it and only it is the heir apparent to legitimate Ukrainian Orthodoxy and no other group can claim that authority.


There are other reasons why the canonical UOC-MP may cause some (including myself) to shiver. For example, its very strong pro-Russian leaning. I can share with you something that I personally observed during my stay in Kiev in summer 2008. I visited a UOC-MP church building on the premises of the St. Flora monastery for women in the Podil area of the city. Everything in the building - all signs, all announcements, all books and pamphlets sold in their bookstore - was only in Russian. The nuns who were selling candles spoke in Russian, and even when I addressed them in Ukrainian, they deliberately answred me in Russian. There wasn't one single word spoken in Ukrainian, and not one single book about anything Ukrainian (like, for example, Ukrainian saints). I had a feeling that I might have just as well be somewhere in Siberia or in the Urals or in Moscow. The whole church was Russian to the very core, to the "bone." No, not Slavic, not Church Slavonic - Russian.

And it's not merely this parish or monastery; it's a party line, a pattern. There are occasional priests or deacons or even maybe bishops who might, sometimes, on occasion, speak Ukrainian a little bit - but overall, Ukraine as such simply does not exist for UOC-MP. On the official UOC-MP TV channel, the content vividly reminds of old Soviet days because when they speak about, say, Maksim Gorky or Feodor Shalyapin, they call them "OUR" writer and "OUR" singer, as if there is no difference whatsoever between "Great Russians" and "Little Russians, "malorosy." Clergy as well as laity of UOC-MP supports anti-Ukrainian groups like "Yedinoe Otechestvo" ("The Common Motherland"), "Russian Block," and other "fifth column" groups of this kind.

Now, I am not a diehard Ukrainian chauvinist-xenophobe; I love the Russian language, literature, culture; but I am simply offended when Ukraine is wiped out from the map and from people's minds with the help of organizations like UOC-MP. I cannot really explain this to people who have a merely theoretical knowledge of Ukraine though, so I'll just leave it at that.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2010, 02:14:06 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #15 on: January 27, 2010, 02:21:10 PM »

I understand how you feel, George, but for me the Florovsky Convent was a piece of heaven. Every little visit to the place brought peace and comfort to my soul...Even my former co-religionists, who were SO anti-Orthodox, fell silent and reverent when I took them there, and they always left that place with an odd expression on their face and the comment, "hmm...maybe Orthodoxy DOES have something...some beauty....something....to offer...."
Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,472



WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 27, 2010, 02:43:03 PM »



...if the Orthodoxy in that monastery in Ukraine had some actual "Ukrainian" in it...it would have been even BETTER!  Wink
Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #17 on: January 27, 2010, 02:59:14 PM »

Does anybody understand that there already is a legitimate Ukrainian Orthodox Church?  It is an autonomous local Church (meaning that it is free in all things except that its primate must be approved by the MP).  This Church seems to be almost completely ignored by those who clamor for a "Ukrainian Church".  Should not all Ukrainian Churches abroad place themselves under the canonical leadership of Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev who is the spiritual father of all Orthodox Ukrainians?

Of course the UOC-MP may be unacceptable to some Ukrainians because they continue to hold onto the universal attributes of Slavic Orthodoxy, like Church Slavonic instead of modern Ukrainian.  They also see the Church as a primarily spiritual institution and not as a political party and anti Russian agency.  Either way, it and only it is the heir apparent to legitimate Ukrainian Orthodoxy and no other group can claim that authority.


There are other reasons why the canonical UOC-MP may cause some (including myself) to shiver. For example, its very strong pro-Russian leaning. I can share with you something that I personally observed during my stay in Kiev in summer 2008. I visited a UOC-MP church building on the premises of the St. Flora monastery for women in the Podil area of the city. Everything in the building - all signs, all announcements, all books and pamphlets sold in their bookstore - was only in Russian. The nuns who were selling candles spoke in Russian, and even when I addressed them in Ukrainian, they deliberately answred me in Russian.

My understanding (never having been there) that Kiev is a very Russian city.


Quote
There wasn't one single word spoken in Ukrainian, and not one single book about anything Ukrainian (like, for example, Ukrainian saints).

Nothing on SS Volodymyr and Olha? Odd.


Quote
I had a feeling that I might have just as well be somewhere in Siberia or in the Urals or in Moscow. The whole church was Russian to the very core, to the "bone." No, not Slavic, not Church Slavonic - Russian.

They had services in Russian?  I don't think they do that even in Russia.


Quote
And it's not merely this parish or monastery; it's a party line, a pattern. There are occasional priests or deacons or even maybe bishops who might, sometimes, on occasion, speak Ukrainian a little bit - but overall, Ukraine as such simply does not exist for UOC-MP. On the official UOC-MP TV channel, the content vividly reminds of old Soviet days because when they speak about, say, Maksim Gorky or Feodor Shalyapin, they call them "OUR" writer and "OUR" singer, as if there is no difference whatsoever between "Great Russians" and "Little Russians, "malorosy." Clergy as well as laity of UOC-MP supports anti-Ukrainian groups like "Yedinoe Otechestvo" ("The Common Motherland"), "Russian Block," and other "fifth column" groups of this kind.

Now, I am not a diehard Ukrainian chauvinist-xenophobe; I love the Russian language, literature, culture; but I am simply offended when Ukraine is wiped out from the map and from people's minds with the help of organizations like UOC-MP. I cannot really explain this to people who have a merely theoretical knowledge of Ukraine though, so I'll just leave it at that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,472



WWW
« Reply #18 on: January 27, 2010, 03:07:30 PM »


I've actually been to the wonderful city of Kyiv.  Of course it's been over 10 years...but, even then it was not "very" Russian. 

Harkiv, which is in Eastern Ukraine and very close to Russia, was VERY Russian.  I had the same experience as Heorhij.  I spoke Ukrainian and got no response from the desk clerk at the hotel.  When I finally switched and threw in some Russian...all of a sudden I was understood.  Funny how I can understand Russian, but, Russians don't seem capable of understanding Ukrainian.  It's a dilemma!   Smiley

...and honestly, I don't know why Robb revived this thread from July...when he had nothing new of value to add.  He is just trying to cause strife and to open old wounds.  I hope that he does not represent all Russians in his dislike of Ukraine.

I wish everyone peace and joy....and I leave Ukraine in the hands of God.  Only He can see her through this, as He has seen her through so many, many countless attacks and hardships.

....and to all of you...a big Ukrainian bear hug!  I don't want to argue with any of my Russian brothers/sisters, or those who prefer Russia over Ukraine.  God loves us all, and therefore, I will try to do the same!



Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #19 on: January 27, 2010, 04:26:02 PM »

Ukrainians are Russians.  They are slightly different from the Great Russians of Moscow and St. Petersburg, but still part of the great Motherland of East Slavic, Orthodox peoples. 

Also, I'm sorry to say but, from what I've seen, groups like the UOC-KP and UOAC are very, very anti Russian.  They exalt the Ukrainian nation into a thing to be worshiped alongside of Christianity.  Russians may get somewhat nationalistic at times with their religion but, from what I've seen, nowhere near as much as Ukrainians are with whatever Church or religious group they affiliate with. 

Why, for instance is vernacular Ukrainian used in place of Old Church Slavonic by these breakaway Ukrainian groups?  All East Slavic Orthodox Churches use Slavonic. It is the grandmother language of all modern E Slavic tongues.  Yet these Ukrainian Orthodox insist on using their own language just like the UGCC does.  They picked up the use of the vernacular from the Catholics.

I am also not looking forward to the day when their is a "solution" to the Ukrainian Church problem.  I have a feeling that the solution will be forcing everyone into a united Ukrainian Church which places nationalism above religion and promotes ultra Ukrainianism over pan Slavism.

 Who will be the head of this united Ukrainian Church?  Probably not Metropolitan Vladimir, but one of the many counter "patriarchs" who stir up trouble against his legitimate authority.

  What will be the language of such a Church?  Probably not Church Slavonic, but modern day Ukrainian.

Finally, when the majority of Ukrainians have strong pro Russian sentiment and choose to speak Russian as their first language, why would any of them want to belong to a united Ukrainian Church as I have described above?
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 27, 2010, 04:30:24 PM »


Ukrainians are Russians.  They are slightly different from the Great Russians of Moscow and St. Petersburg, but still part of the great Motherland of East Slavic, Orthodox peoples. 

This is like saying that Austrians are Germans.  And some Czechs.  And some Poles. 

Quote
Why, for instance is vernacular Ukrainian used in place of Old Church Slavonic by these breakaway Ukrainian groups?  All East Slavic Orthodox Churches use Slavonic. It is the grandmother language of all modern E Slavic tongues.  Yet these Ukrainian Orthodox insist on using their own language just like the UGCC does.  They picked up the use of the vernacular from the Catholics.

Not really.  The Great Russian Synod that never was thanks to the Revolution had, as one of the items on its agenda, the use of the vernacular in the Divine Services.  The UGCC was still using Slavonic in its services at that point.  
« Last Edit: January 27, 2010, 04:33:57 PM by Schultz » Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #21 on: January 27, 2010, 04:39:39 PM »

Just because the use of the "vernacular" was a topic to be discussed at the Synod did not mean that it would have been approved.  The same argument is used by those advocating the New calendar for the ROC (that ti was to be discussed at the Synod).  This does not mean that it would have been approved by that body.

Also, Austrians are a Germanic people.  They speak the same language and identified themselves as Germans throughout most of their history (the Holy Roman Empire headed from Vienna until 1806 was called "of the German Nation"). 

Ukrainians used to be referred to as ":Ruthenians" in the old days.  They were subjects of the Austrian empire whichhad a hand in creating the hybrid language and culture which is today accepted as legitimately Ukrainian. 
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #22 on: January 27, 2010, 04:50:28 PM »

Since you are an Italian-American Robb, I honestly do not understand your need to keep coming onto this forum and insulting those of us who actually ARE ethnically Ukrainian!

Ukraine is NOT Russia.

I don't know what we have to do or say to drill this into your head, but we are NOT the same country and do NOT speak the same language.

What you gain out of continually insulting Ukraine I will never know.  Roll Eyes
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,472



WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 27, 2010, 05:02:45 PM »


You know...Robb is just like any school yard bully.

He suffers from a bad self image....and puffs up his pride by bullying and demeaning others.

Robb, I will NOT argue with you on this forum or in PM...so don't bother trying!

I pity you.

You only stir up trouble between Russians and Ukrainians....you are doing the devil's work, not God's.

I have nothing but pity for you.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 27, 2010, 05:11:27 PM »

Just because the use of the "vernacular" was a topic to be discussed at the Synod did not mean that it would have been approved.  The same argument is used by those advocating the New calendar for the ROC (that ti was to be discussed at the Synod).  This does not mean that it would have been approved by that body.

That doesn't matter.  You claimed the the UOC-KP got the idea of celebrating in the vernacular from the Catholics.  That is simply untrue.  The idea of celebrating the Divine Mysteries in such a way was homegrown.

Quote
Also, Austrians are a Germanic people.  They speak the same language and identified themselves as Germans throughout most of their history (the Holy Roman Empire headed from Vienna until 1806 was called "of the German Nation").  

And, yet, if you call an Austrian a German now, they will laugh at you.  I seriously dare you to do it.  It's like calling an Aussie an Englishman.  You do so at your own peril.  And, seriously, who are you to tell anyone who they are?  Have you even been to Europe?  Have you ever discussed these things with real people who actually live there in person and not over the internet?  

Quote
Ukrainians used to be referred to as ":Ruthenians" in the old days.  They were subjects of the Austrian empire whichhad a hand in creating the hybrid language and culture which is today accepted as legitimately Ukrainian.  

Languages and cultures change over time.  It's a fact of human history.  What was true of a people occupying a particular geographic area 100 years ago is not the same truth of a people occupying the same nowadays.  People who lived in Gdansk 100 years ago were "Germans."  Today we call them Poles.

Your Russophilia is making you look like a fool.  I suggest you stop telling Ukrainians that their culture is phony if you want to go far in life.  
« Last Edit: January 27, 2010, 05:12:22 PM by Schultz » Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #25 on: January 27, 2010, 05:28:30 PM »

Ukrainians are Russians.

Whether it sinks or not, that ship has sailed.


Quote
  They are slightly different from the Great Russians of Moscow and St. Petersburg, but still part of the great Motherland of East Slavic, Orthodox peoples. 

As Heorhij often argues, the Russians of Moscow and St. Petersburg can be seen as still part of that great Motherland of Ukraine. After all, Kiev at all levels was the heart of the Orthdooxy of the Rus'

Quote
Also, I'm sorry to say but, from what I've seen, groups like the UOC-KP and UOAC are very, very anti Russian.


They can be, but that isn't totally without provocation.

Quote
They exalt the Ukrainian nation into a thing to be worshiped alongside of Christianity.  Russians may get somewhat nationalistic at times with their religion but, from what I've seen, nowhere near as much as Ukrainians are with whatever Church or religious group they affiliate with.
 

Russification was blot on the Russian Church.

Quote
Why, for instance is vernacular Ukrainian used in place of Old Church Slavonic by these breakaway Ukrainian groups?  All East Slavic Orthodox Churches use Slavonic.

The form they use is the Ukrainian recension.

Quote
It is the grandmother language of all modern E Slavic tongues.


It's a Southern Slavic tongue.

Quote
Yet these Ukrainian Orthodox insist on using their own language just like the UGCC does.  They picked up the use of the vernacular from the Catholics.

The Russians use Russian in the sermon, not Slavonic.  At the consecration of the Cathedral in New York, the sermons and speeches were given in Ukrainian.

Quote
I am also not looking forward to the day when their is a "solution" to the Ukrainian Church problem.  I have a feeling that the solution will be forcing everyone into a united Ukrainian Church which places nationalism above religion and promotes ultra Ukrainianism over pan Slavism.

I'm looking forward to an Autocephalous Patriarchate in Ukraine.

 
Quote
Who will be the head of this united Ukrainian Church?  Probably not Metropolitan Vladimir, but one of the many counter "patriarchs" who stir up trouble against his legitimate authority.

Why not Met. Volodymyr?

Quote
What will be the language of such a Church?  Probably not Church Slavonic, but modern day Ukrainian.
How about Church Slavonic, Ukrainian and Russian (and Tartar in Crimea)?  And why not in modern day Ukrainian. After all, that's what modern day Ukrainian Orthodox speak.

Quote
Finally, when the majority of Ukrainians have strong pro Russian sentiment and choose to speak Russian as their first language, why would any of them want to belong to a united Ukrainian Church as I have described above?
Odd question for someone telling the Ukrainians that they have to be Russians.

I don't know if Ukraine's future is to be in union with Russia or not.  But since I am not Ukrainian, my say in that is quite limited.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,812


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 27, 2010, 05:55:34 PM »

I get particularly vexed by the objections of some Russian Orthodox to a Ukrainian desire to use modern Ukrainian in the Church. I was taught Carpatho-Rusyn plainchant by my dad from an early age, first in Church Slavonic and later in English. Today my parish is English, with some honorific use of Church Slavonic such as Christos Voskres/Christ is Risen or the Christmas Troparion (Rozdestvo.) Likewise, the Choir will sing an occasional Cherubic Hymn or Many Years in Slavonic.  The last fully Slavonic Liturgy was celebrated by our late pastor on his 66th ordination anniversary. I enjoy the sound of Church Slavonic, either Choral or plainchant, on an emotional level as it brings back many fond memories, but I will defend the use of English with all of the vigor that I can summon. If you speak to non-Eastern Christian Ukrainian immigrants in the USA and ask why they left the Church (I don't care if they were UGCC or any of the Orthodox bodies) the most common answer you will receive is that they understood the language used by the Protestant missionaries. One of the saddest youtube videos that I ever saw were Baptists singing Christls Voskres in Ukrainian to the music of an organ. I can't help but wonder how the history of the Orthodox world would have advanced had SS. Cyril and Methodius not brought forth the Word in a language that people could comprehend.
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2010, 01:28:22 AM »

I'm not telling anyone what language they should speak.  However a good deal of people in Eastern Ukrainian not only continue to speak Russian, but also identify themselves with Russia.  Despite all the hand ringing over the creation of a separate Ukrainian Church, the majority of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine feel comfortable belonging to the one with ties to Moscow.

Why blame me for pointing this out?  Why not ask these Ukrainian people why they feel comfortable affiliating with the UOC-MP and speaking Russian over modern Ukrainian?

Everybody seems to rush to support the Ukrainian nationalist in that country, but nobody seems to care much about the national self determination of those who continue to identify themselves with the things I've mentioned.  If the ethnic Ukrainians of the western part of the country wish to see themselves as that then they should be aloud to.  However, the same rights should be granted to those who wish to continue to see themselves as Russians in the east (no to mention the Carpatho Rusyns in the extreme west.

Perhaps the solution would be to partition the Ukraine into an independent country t the west and the east could be annexed to Russia?  After all, that solution seems to be the best considering the linguistic and cultural demographics of that country.
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #28 on: January 28, 2010, 01:54:30 AM »

I'm not telling anyone what language they should speak.  However a good deal of people in Eastern Ukrainian not only continue to speak Russian, but also identify themselves with Russia.  Despite all the hand ringing over the creation of a separate Ukrainian Church, the majority of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine feel comfortable belonging to the one with ties to Moscow.

Why blame me for pointing this out?  Why not ask these Ukrainian people why they feel comfortable affiliating with the UOC-MP and speaking Russian over modern Ukrainian?

Everybody seems to rush to support the Ukrainian nationalist in that country, but nobody seems to care much about the national self determination of those who continue to identify themselves with the things I've mentioned.  If the ethnic Ukrainians of the western part of the country wish to see themselves as that then they should be aloud to.  However, the same rights should be granted to those who wish to continue to see themselves as Russians in the east (no to mention the Carpatho Rusyns in the extreme west.

Perhaps the solution would be to partition the Ukraine into an independent country t the west and the east could be annexed to Russia?  After all, that solution seems to be the best considering the linguistic and cultural demographics of that country.

Well the majority of Orthodox believers in Ukraine already belong to the KP...so.....there ya go.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #29 on: January 28, 2010, 02:05:16 AM »

I'm not telling anyone what language they should speak.  However a good deal of people in Eastern Ukrainian not only continue to speak Russian, but also identify themselves with Russia.  Despite all the hand ringing over the creation of a separate Ukrainian Church, the majority of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine feel comfortable belonging to the one with ties to Moscow.

Why blame me for pointing this out?  Why not ask these Ukrainian people why they feel comfortable affiliating with the UOC-MP and speaking Russian over modern Ukrainian?

Everybody seems to rush to support the Ukrainian nationalist in that country, but nobody seems to care much about the national self determination of those who continue to identify themselves with the things I've mentioned.  If the ethnic Ukrainians of the western part of the country wish to see themselves as that then they should be aloud to.  However, the same rights should be granted to those who wish to continue to see themselves as Russians in the east (no to mention the Carpatho Rusyns in the extreme west.

Perhaps the solution would be to partition the Ukraine into an independent country t the west and the east could be annexed to Russia?  After all, that solution seems to be the best considering the linguistic and cultural demographics of that country.

It's your insistance that Ukrainian is some made-up language and culture that irks us Robb. We are well aware that Eastern Ukrainians speak Russian. However this does not mean that Ukraine is not a seperate country from Russia.

It is not uncommon in Europe for countries to have more than one predominant language. In Switzerland there are five national languages. In Belgium there are two. Are you suggesting that the Swiss and the Belgians start dividing up their country by language? What about Germans in the Alsacian mountains that speak French? Should they give up their German citizenship? How about the Northern Italians that speak French? Are you going to throw them out as well?

Unlike the United States, the Great Melting Pot of the World, other countries are more tolerant of different groups speaking different languages. Why just look at our neighbors to the North. The Francophones in Quebec are allowed to preserve their French language and culture, as are other ethnic groups throughout Canada.

So although the Ukrainians in Eastern Ukraine may speak Russian, this doesn't make them any less Ukrainian, nor does it make "Ukrainian" any less valid of a European culture than any other ethnic or cultural group.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 28, 2010, 02:22:24 AM »


5) What needs to happen for Kiev to have its own legitimate primate today?

Does it not already from a canonical EO point of view?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 28, 2010, 02:25:27 AM »


I just saw yesterday that the OCA has put the Church of Ukraine on as a seperate/autonomous Church, which I take as a good sign.

Do you mean the church under Metropolitan Volodymyr? Why would that not have been recognized for awhile? Hasn't it been autonomous since 1990?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #32 on: January 28, 2010, 02:31:56 AM »


Why, for instance is vernacular Ukrainian used in place of Old Church Slavonic by these breakaway Ukrainian groups?

Perhaps so that the laity can completely understand the liturgy?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #33 on: January 28, 2010, 02:41:20 AM »


5) What needs to happen for Kiev to have its own legitimate primate today?

Does it not already from a canonical EO point of view?

The Kiev Patriarch is not a canonical Patriarch recognized by Worldwide Orthodoxy. Currently, the only Canonical Patriarch in Ukraine recognized by Worldwide Orthodoxy is the Moscow Patrairch.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 28, 2010, 02:43:46 AM »


5) What needs to happen for Kiev to have its own legitimate primate today?

Does it not already from a canonical EO point of view?

The Kiev Patriarch is not a canonical Patriarch recognized by Worldwide Orthodoxy. Currently, the only Canonical Patriarch in Ukraine recognized by Worldwide Orthodoxy is the Moscow Patrairch.

I know. That's not what the question was seemingly asking about.

I've heard of heads of non-patriarchal autocephalous churches and even non-autocephalous autonomous churches referred to as primates.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 02:45:30 AM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #35 on: January 28, 2010, 03:08:03 AM »

Okay, I grant you that their are Ukrainians who wish to belong to the UOC-KP, but what about those who preffer to stay with the UOC-MP with her Slavonic services and Russian sermons.  

Would they be forced to join a newly created Ukrainian Church which uses only vernacular Ukrainian and forces a nationalistic Ukrainian identity on them?  Where is the cultural sensitivity towards those who wish to define themselves as Russians and belong to the ROC who live within the territory of present day Ukraine? Should they be forced to become Ukrainians even though they see themselves as Russians?

Here is an interesting Wiki article on Russian language in Ukraine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language_in_Ukraine


Russian is the major minority language in Ukraine. It is the most common first language in Donbass, Odessa and Crimea regions, the most commonly used language in east and south cities of the country as well as in its capital, Kiev, and the most widespread second language throughout Ukraine. The usage and status of the language is an object of political disputes within Ukrainian society and the considerable Russian minority of the country. The number of Russian-teaching schools has been systematically reduced since Ukrainian independence in 1991 and now it is much lower than the proportion of Russophones,[1][2][3] however higher than proportion of ethnic Russians.

Russian language and culture dominates (parts of) Ukraine’s public sphere, but nonetheless (some) Russian politicians have portrayed the Ukrainian government’s desultory attempts to expand the use of Ukrainian in the media and schools in the eastern and southern parts of the country and the more Ukrainian-oriented central and western parts as outrageous violations of human rights.[4]

Current Ukrainian President Viktor Yuschenko has stated that Ukraine should give "full support to the development of the languages of national minorities"[5] and the Law on Education grants Ukrainian families (parents and their children) a right to choose their native language for schools and studies.[6] The Russian language is still studied as a required course in all secondary schools, including those with Ukrainian as the primary language of instructions[7].


This article is also interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainization


Ukrainization (also spelled Ukrainisation or Ukrainianization) is a policy of increasing the usage and facilitating the development of the Ukrainian language and promoting other elements of Ukrainian culture, in various spheres of public life such as education, publishing, government and religion.

The term is used, most prominently, for the Soviet indigenization policy of the 1920s (korenizatsiya, literally ‘putting down roots’), aimed at strengthening Soviet power in the territory of Soviet Ukraine and southern regions of the Russian SFSR. In various forms the Ukrainization policies were also carried in several different periods of the twentieth century history of Ukraine, although with somewhat different goals and in different historical contexts.

Ukrainization is often cited as a response and the means to address the consequences of previous assimilationist policies aimed at suppressing or even eradicating the Ukrainian language and culture from most spheres of public life, most frequently a policy of Russification in the times of the Russian Empire (see also Ems Ukaz) and in the USSR, but also Polonization and Rumanization in some Western Ukrainian regions.

Following independence, the government of Ukraine began following a policy of Ukrainization,[1] to increase the use of Ukrainian, while discouraging Russian, which has been gradually squeezed out from the country's education system[2] government,[3] and national TV, radio programmes and films.[4]

The Law on Education grants Ukrainian families (parents and their children) a right to choose their native language for schools and studies.[5]
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 03:17:26 AM by Robb » Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #36 on: January 28, 2010, 03:30:52 AM »

Okay, I grant you that their are Ukrainians who wish to belong to the UOC-KP, but what about those who preffer to stay with the UOC-MP with her Slavonic services and Russian sermons.  

Would they be forced to join a newly created Ukrainian Church which uses only vernacular Ukrainian and forces a nationalistic Ukrainian identity on them?  Where is the cultural sensitivity towards those who wish to define themselves as Russians and belong to the ROC who live within the territory of present day Ukraine? Should they be forced to become Ukrainians even though they see themselves as Russians?

I find it interesting that you are using a so-called defense against "those poor Russian speaking Ukrainians" as a means to excuse your rude behavior to those of us on this forum who are ethnically Ukrainian and speak Ukrainian.

It is not for us on this forum to decide the fate of Orthodoxy in Ukraine but it is for the Bishops to decide.

Personally, I don't see any reason why all the faithful shouldn't be able to come under one canonical Bishop and let the parish's decide on an individual basis to use whatever language they choose. (They can do the Liturgy in Swahili for all I care!)

I don't know what your beef is with Ukraine, but I'm tired of hearing about it. If you think Russia is so great, why don't you try living there?
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 28, 2010, 03:48:43 AM »


Would they be forced to join a newly created Ukrainian Church which uses only vernacular Ukrainian and forces a nationalistic Ukrainian identity on them?  Where is the cultural sensitivity towards those who wish to define themselves as Russians and belong to the ROC who live within the territory of present day Ukraine? Should they be forced to become Ukrainians even though they see themselves as Russians?

Their liturgical, linguistic, and cultural preferences should be respected within one national Ukrainian church just as the more "standard" Ukrainians should. However, you made it sound like you don't tolerate the latter group anyway, so I don't know what room you have to be whining about the former.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #38 on: January 28, 2010, 08:02:14 AM »


I just saw yesterday that the OCA has put the Church of Ukraine on as a seperate/autonomous Church, which I take as a good sign.

Do you mean the church under Metropolitan Volodymyr? Why would that not have been recognized for awhile? Hasn't it been autonomous since 1990?
Yes. It was recognized. Yes. It is just interesting that it is so prominent. Given Met. Jonah's relationship with the Russians, I take it as a sign that at least some of the higher ups in Russia are fine with Ukraine distinguishing herself.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 28, 2010, 09:08:18 AM »

I'm not telling anyone what language they should speak.  However a good deal of people in Eastern Ukrainian not only continue to speak Russian, but also identify themselves with Russia.  Despite all the hand ringing over the creation of a separate Ukrainian Church, the majority of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine feel comfortable belonging to the one with ties to Moscow.

Why blame me for pointing this out?  Why not ask these Ukrainian people why they feel comfortable affiliating with the UOC-MP and speaking Russian over modern Ukrainian?

Everybody seems to rush to support the Ukrainian nationalist in that country, but nobody seems to care much about the national self determination of those who continue to identify themselves with the things I've mentioned.  If the ethnic Ukrainians of the western part of the country wish to see themselves as that then they should be aloud to.  However, the same rights should be granted to those who wish to continue to see themselves as Russians in the east (no to mention the Carpatho Rusyns in the extreme west.

Perhaps the solution would be to partition the Ukraine into an independent country t the west and the east could be annexed to Russia?  After all, that solution seems to be the best considering the linguistic and cultural demographics of that country.

Robb, during the referendum of 1991, more than 90% of people in the eastern regions of Ukraine voted for independence. Almost no one in Ukraine, be it East or West, wants to be governed by the Kremlin in a restored USSR.

Virtually 100% of Ukrainians are equally fluent in Ukrainian and in Russian, so this so-called language problem is totally, completely artificial. In the Ukrainian parliament, one can hear speeches in Russian every day.

There is no objective need to change anything in Ukraine as far as its independence and territorial integrity is concerned.

However, the Kremlin is mad that Ukraine is becoming a truly independent country and a Western ally. Medvedoputins hate seeing Ukraine in NATO, Ukraine with freedoms of the speech and press and assemblies and worship. Hence megatons of hateful anti-Ukrainian propaganda in all existing Russian language TV channels, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, Internet resources.

Unfortunately, UOC-MP is being used by Medvedoputins as a means of this propaganda.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 09:09:25 AM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #40 on: January 28, 2010, 04:31:17 PM »

Why should the Ukraine wish to belong to NATO?  Wouldn't that be taken by Russia as kind of threatening to her security?

Was does NATO even still exist since the USSR is no more? 

Is the west to be forever at Russia's throat attempting to halt any possible expansion of that country in influence or allies?

Why does Ukraine seek to become "westernized" anyway?  Isn't the pan Slavic ideal good enough for her people?  Do they need to turn to the west and its secular, godless values as opposed to the Orthodox faith and culture espoused by Moscow?

Let me say again that I have personally nothing against Ukrainians (being those people from central and Western Ukraine who choose to define themselves as such.  But, as Orthodox Christians, we must be careful to remember who benefited most by the creation of a strong Ukrainian self identity as opposed to a weaker, pan Slavic one.  The emperor of who and the Pope of what didn't like Russia and they used the Ukrainian nationalism as a way to counter balance it and halt the forward march of Orthodox Russia into Galicia and Hungary. 

This does not mean that the Ukrainian people do not have an identity which is separate from the Great Russians, but often times those who seek to play most on that separateness also have an ulterior motive to their support (think of the CIA/Bush who supported the Ukrainian "Orange revolution" in 2004).  Why did they do that?  Was it to help Ukraine become completely free of Russian control for the sake of the Ukrainians, or was it just to have Ukraine jump into the west lap in order to halt further Russian power over the former Soviet states?
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« Reply #41 on: January 28, 2010, 04:55:46 PM »

Why are you in support of Pan- Slavism? Thats the same rhetoric the Soviets used in their argument of Russifying Ukraine and other non-russian territories in the former Soveit Union.
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #42 on: January 28, 2010, 05:02:57 PM »

Pan Slavism is very big amongst Russian Orthodox people.  It was supported as a policy by the Czars (and the Austrians as well) long before the Soviet Union was created. 

Pan Slavism does not necessarily mean that all Slavs must become Russian, but that all Slav's should unite together on the basis of their Slavdom and Orthodox faith and that Russia, being the largest and most powerful Slavic country, is most suitable to lead them to unity.  The Austrians tried to same thing with the Catholic Slav's in their empire and even the Greek Catholic Ruthenians were considered a part of this union.
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,472



WWW
« Reply #43 on: January 28, 2010, 05:05:04 PM »


Robb,

Just curious...what Faith do you adhere to?

Are you Orthodox?

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #44 on: January 28, 2010, 05:10:28 PM »

The same one as you.
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.214 seconds with 72 queries.