OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 04:17:22 AM *
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 8730 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: 37,483



« 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: 37,483



« 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: 37,483



« 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
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« 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

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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: 37,483



« 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
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


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

I'm sorry. I don't like generalising.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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: 37,483



« 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: 8,241


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


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: 37,483



« 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: 8,241


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


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: 12,923



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: 37,483



« 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: 12,923



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: 6,467


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: 12,923



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: 6,467


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: 37,483



« 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: 8,241


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


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: 37,483



« 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: 12,923



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
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: 12,923



WWW
« Reply #45 on: January 28, 2010, 05:18:02 PM »



How should one know this?

Why don't you enter your Faith under your avatar, like most others do?

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
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #46 on: January 28, 2010, 05:37:52 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? 

Because nothing ever changes in Russia. It's not a democracy. It's an autocratic regime with imperialist ambitions. It views all ex-soviet countries as its colonies.

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

It should better.

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?

Ukraine seeks to be democratic, i.e. a country where the human dignity and free will are respected. As far as "Orthodox culture," I simply do not know what that is. Was the culture of Domostroy, a culture of flogging wives and serfs to death, a culture of burning Protopop Avvacum (and countless other Old Believers, off record) at stake or in their houses, a culture of Princess Sophia Augusta Frederica von Anhaldt-Zerbst (a.k.a. Catherine the "Great") indulging in carnal orgies with dozens of lovers, of which the last was 20 year old when she was in her 70-s - "Orthodox?" Then I am a Zoroastrian...
Logged

Love never fails.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,241


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #47 on: January 28, 2010, 05:52:54 PM »

For those non-Slavs who may not be familiar with the concept of panslavism, Wiki has a fairly accurate description of the movement. I think that this excerpt regarding the modern day status of the concept is helpful to the discussion. I, for one, have never met a Ukrainian and very few from Transcarpathia, Galicia or Bukovina (except for great Russian sympathizers) who were supporters of the concept. Most of us of Central Slav heritage viewed it as an excuse for the Russians to extend their sphere of influence which was manifested by the former Iron Curtain. Anyway, here is what wiki says:

 The authentic idea of unity of the Slavic people was all but gone after World War I when the maxim "Versailles and Trianon have put an end to all Slavisms" [2] and was finally put to rest with the fall of communism in Central and Eastern Europe in late 1980s. With the failure of Pan-Slavic states such as Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and the problem of Russian and Serbian dominance in any proposed all-Slavic organisation, the idea of Pan-Slavic unity is mostly considered dead. Varying relations between the Slavic countries exist nowadays; they range from mutual respect on equal footing and sympathy towards one another through traditional dislike and enmity, to indifference. None, other than culture and heritage oriented organizations, are currently considered as a form of rapprochement among the countries with Slavic origins. In modern times the appeals to Pan-Slavism are often made in Russia, Serbia and Slovakia.[3]
Logged
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« Reply #48 on: January 28, 2010, 06:14:40 PM »

Robb, I would let the Ukrainians determine their own course as to becoming cannonically recognized. It is ridiculous reading all these threads about Ukraine and her mother church. Some are against KP due to His Holiness Partiarch Filaret's former membership in the MP. Some are against the Eccumenical Patriarch due to the fact Constantinople is unwilling to allow Ukraine her own church, but rather aim to have a Ukrainian church under the omaphor of Constantinople due to her battle with Moscow for influence in the area. In the end yes there is a substantial part of the Ukrainian population that consider themselves members of the UOC-MP. But take this into account: 20% of the population in Ukraine is ethnically Russian, descendants to the native Russians Stalin sent in an attempt to help Russify the area. Also Eastern Ukraine was under the Russian influence far longer than the western end due to the Soviets annexing western Ukraine from Poland in 1939. Although in western Ukraine, there majority of Christians were Uniate (Ukrainian Eastern Catholic) there was a substantial part of the population that remained Orthodox.

After the Ukrainian lands to the east of the Dnipro river came under the domination of Russia in the mid-seventeenth century, the pressure on the independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church increased. In 1686, after three decades of struggle in which the last Metropolitan of Kyiv Yosyf (Nelyubovych-Tukalsky) was particularly active, Moscow succeeded in overcoming resistance of the Ukrainian clergy and got the Kyivan Metropolitanate incorporated into the Moscow Patriarchate. In the Ukrainian lands to the west of the Dnipro river which remained under Polish domination, Polonization continued coupled with the pressure on the population to convert to Catholicism. Those were very hard times for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Moscow sent gifts to the patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius (these gifts, incidentally, were not too lavish — a few sables and a weight of gold) to secure his approval of the incorporation of the Kyivan Metropolitanate into the Moscow Patriarchate. He sanctioned the move but a year later was removed from his office. Unfortunately, what was done could not be undone and for the next 335 years the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was denied an independent status. Moscow religious authorities did their worst in suppressing the national feelings and drive for independence. There was only a handful of prominent Ukrainian political and religious figures in the centuries that followed up to the early twentieth, who benefited the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in some way. But even they restricted themselves mostly to promoting the arts and education or donating to the construction of churches and other architectural landmarks. Probably the only exception was the time in the early eighteenth century when Ivan Mazepa was hetman of Ukraine. He was the last one to make an attempt to break free from Moscow’s clutches.

If one were to look at the breakdown of Orthodox adherants In Ukraine, here is a good breakdown of the numbers…. http://www.search.com/reference/Religion_in_Ukraine

Thus Russian Orthodox church (in today Ukraine is called Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)) traditionally (since Russian Empire and Soviet Union) has a favor of many local authorities. The survey indicates
   50.44 percent - with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate;
   only 26.13 percent believers identify themselves as adherents of Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) (has largest number of Churches in Ukraine);
   8.02 percent belong to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (sometimes referred to as the Uniate, Byzantine, or Eastern Rite Church);
   7.21 percent to the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church;
   2.19 percent belonged to the Roman Catholic Church;
   2.19 percent identified themselves as Protestants (Pentecostal, Baptist, Lutheran, Mennonites, Adventists);
   0.63 percent belong to Jewish religious practices;
   3.2 percent said they belonged to "other denominations".
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) has 35 eparchies and 10,875 communities (approximately 68 percent of all Orthodox Christian communities in the country), most of which were located in the central, southern, and eastern oblasts.
Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan) of Kiev headed the denomination within the country. The UOC(MP), which had 9,072 clergy members, referred to itself as The Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) uses most Russian and Old-Slavonic languages.
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate (UOC-KP) was formed after independence and has been headed since 1995 by Patriarch Filaret (Denysenko), who was once the Russian Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine. The Church claims direct lineage to the Kievan Metropolia of Petro Mohyla.
The UOC-KP had 31 eparchies, 3,721 communities, and 2,816 clergy members. Approximately 60 percent of the UOC-KP faithful live in the western part of the country. The UOC-KP was not recognized by the Eastern Orthodox Communion.
The UOC-KP uses Ukrainian language.
The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) was founded in 1919 in Kiev. Banned during the Soviet era, it was legalized in 1989.
The church has 12 eparchies and 1,166 communities, approximately 70 percent of them in the western part of the country. The UAOC has 686 clergy members.
In the interest of the possible future unification of the country's Orthodox churches, it did not name a patriarch to succeed the late Patriarch Dmitriy. The UAOC was formally headed in the country by Metropolitan Methodij of Ternopil and Podil; however, the large eparchies of Kharkiv-Poltava, Lviv, Rivne-Volyn, and Tavriya have officially broken relations with Methodij and have asked to be placed under the direct jurisdiction of Istanbul-based Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.
The UAOC uses Ukrainian language.
The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) constituted the second largest group of believers after the Christian Orthodox churches. The Council of Brest formed the Church in 1596 to unify Orthodox and Roman Catholic believers. Outlawed by the Soviet Union in 1946 and legalized in 1989, the UGCC was for forty-three years the single largest banned religious community in the world.
The UGCC had 18 eparchies, 3,433 communities, and 2,136 clergy members. The UGCC's members, who constituted a majority of the believers in western Ukraine, numbered approximately four million.
The UGCC uses Ukrainian language.

Logged
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« Reply #49 on: January 28, 2010, 06:17:58 PM »

In its session of January 23, 2010, the Holy Synod of the UOC - Kyiv Patriarchate considered the results of the work of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission that met on December 10-16, 2009 in Chambésy (Switzerland), at the Center of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The issues of autocephaly, autonomy and the way of their declaring, and the issue of the Diptychs were the subject matter of the commission’s work. In follow-up of consideration of the commission’s work results the Holy Synod of the UOC-Kyiv Patriarchate adopted respective resolutions (Journal №1) and the Addresses to His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and the Primates of the other Local Orthodox Churches.




JOURNAL No. 1






SESSION OF THE HOLY SYNOD

OF THE UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH -

KYIV PATRIARCHATE



of January 23, 2010 chaired by

His Holiness Patriarch FILARET

of Kyiv and All Rus-Ukraine







HEARD:



The report of His Holiness Patriarch Filaret of Kyiv and all Rus-Ukraine on the session of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission at the Center of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Chambésy (Switzerland), whose task was to elaborate propositions for the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference on the matter of autocephaly and autonomy and the way of declaring them.



REFERENCE:



On December 10 – 16, 2009 in Chambésy (Switzerland), at the Orthodox Center of the Patriarchate of Constantinople the session of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission was held, whose task was elaboration of the propositions for the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference on the problems of autocephaly and autonomy and the ways of their declaring. For the last time these issues were considered at the session of 1993.



The Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conferences were convoked first in the 1960-ies with a purpose to make provision of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, whose participants were going to be all the Local Orthodox Churches. One of the most active participants in the work of the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conferences was Patriarch Filaret, who took part in them in the rank of metropolitan as a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church.



Among the main problems that the participants of the conferences faced was the problem of autocephaly and autonomy of the Churches and the ways of their declaring. On the one hand, the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the group of supporting Churches insist that declaring autocephaly is a prerogative of the Ecumenical Patriarch. On the other hand, the Patriarchate of Moscow and the group of supporting Churches insist that declaring autocephaly is a prerogative of the Mother Church, from which a new autocephalous Church separates.



At the session of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission in Chambésy in December 2009 the propositions as for the possible drawing together of these different views on the problem of declaring autocephaly were discussed. However, the resolutions adopted by the Commission leave many important aspects of this problem unclarified and are of merely preliminary nature. The further consideration of the problem of autocephaly is to take place at the session of the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference, whose time of holding remains indefinite.



At the same time, the representatives of the Churches, who are most of all interested in consideration of the problem of autocephaly and autonomy, in particular, of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, are not invited to the work of both the commission and the conference. Also it is seen from the commission’s decisions that its participants focused on the formal aspects of declaring autocephaly, not having considered the principal issues, namely the criteria whose presence gives one or another local Church a right for autocephaly. In this connection there are reasons to believe that the adoption at the pan-Orthodox level of the draft resolutions proposed by the commission will not in fact solve the existing problems in the matter of declaring autocephaly, but will only intensify them, which will harm the mission of the Orthodox Church on the whole.



RESOLVED:



1. To state that the attempts to resolve the problem of the Church autocephaly and the way of its declaring at the session of December 10-16, 2009 by the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission in the absence of the representatives of those Local Churches, whose fate this matter immediately concerns, in particular – those of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate, do not comply with the spirit and the traditions of conciliar consideration of the important issues of life of the entire Orthodox Church.



From the history and acts of the Ecumenical and pious Local Councils of the Church we see that when solving the problems concerning some Local Churches, certain church leaders or their doctrines, the representatives of these Churches or the relevant church leaders were always invited, being given an opportunity to substantiate and defend their opinions or actions. Even indubitable heretics were not devoid of the right to defend their position in public, since it corresponds with the principle formulated in the Holy Scripture: Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him (cf. John 7:51). Unfortunately, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church –Kyiv Patriarchate is still deforced by the representatives of the other Local Churches of a right to evidence its position when the issue of autocephaly, being the matter of its immediate concern, is considered at the pan-Orthodox level. In so doing the respective provisions of the Holy Scriptures and the conciliar traditions of the Universal Church are broken.



2. To draw attention of the Plenitude of the Orthodox Church to the fact that when considering the issue of the Church autocephaly the Commission’s members discuss secondary problems, and do not consider the main and principal one - they do not formulate on the grounds of the canons and the historical experience of the being of the Universal Orthodoxy the criteria whose presence gives right to a certain Local Orthodox Church to be autocephalous. There one may see an attempt on the part of the recognized Local Orthodox Churches to secure for themselves an exclusive right to decide voluntarily whether to recognize one or another Local Church as autocephalous or not. Such an attempt to ignore completely the rights of the Churches striving for recognition of their autocephaly is faulty, improvident and harmful for the Orthodox Plenitude, since it does not resolve the existing problems, but only intensifies them.



3. To confirm permanence of the stance of the UOC–Kyiv Patriarchate on the matter of declaring autocephaly. The Kyiv Patriarchate, proceeding from the history of the Orthodox Church and the multiple precedents of emerging of the new Churches, believes that autocephaly is declared by the Council of a new autocephalous Church upon availability of respective grounds, one of which being the state independence of the people among whom this Church performs its ministry. Other Local Churches simply recognize or do not recognize the autocephaly of this new Local Church.



4. To particularly note that the mechanism of declaring autocephaly proposed at the commission’s session in Chambésy is impossible to be put into effect and is dead-born. This mechanism does not define the way of declaring a new autocephalous Church, but rather the way not to recognize as long as possible the Church wanting autocephaly.



In 1991 the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has already tried to follow the way proposed now in Chambésy, having presented a conciliar petition of autocephaly for consideration by the episcopate of the Moscow Patriarchate. Consideration of this petition was formally postponed to the next Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, which had to take place in 1995 and 2000 in compliance with its Statute, but it never convened. And even in 2009, when such Council convened, it did not consider the petition mentioned, in defiance of the resolution of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church of April 1992. The commission in Chambésy did not suggest any mechanism of opposing such arbitrariness.



The Councils of the Kyiv Patriarchate have repeatedly turned to the Church of Constantinople, which is historically the Mother for the Ukrainian Church, with a request to consider the question of recognition of autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church. But these requests have been also left without due consideration and response by the present.



5. To take into account all above-mentioned and to send to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and the Primates of the other Local Orthodox Churches the respective open address, in which the stance of the Kyiv Patriarchate is outlined regarding the activity and decisions of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission which sat in session in Chambésy (Switzerland) in December, 2009 (text of the address is attached hereto).



FILARET, Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus-Ukraine



ANDRIY, Metropolitan of Lviv and Sokal



ADRIAN, Metropolitan of Kryvyy Rih and Nikopol



DYMYTRIY, Metropolitan of Pereyaslav-Khmelnytskyy and Boryspil



EVSEVIY, Metropolitan of Rivne and Ostroh



DANYLO, Metropolitan of Chernivtsi and Bukovyna



VOLODYMYR, Archbishop of Mykolayiv and Bohoyavlensk



JOASAF, Archbishop of Bilhorod and Oboyansk



KLYMENT, Bishop of Simferopol and Crimea



ONUFRIY, Bishop of Vinnytsia and Bratslav






Letter to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew

(The letters of analogous content were sent

at the addresses of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow

and of the Primates of the other Orthodox Churches)






HIS ALL-HOLINESS BARTHOLOMEW,

ARCHBISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE-NEW ROME

AND ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH






YOUR ALL HOLINESS!





As we have come to know, on December 10 - 16, 2009, at the center of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in Chambésy (Switzerland) the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission sat in session, whose task was to elaborate propositions for the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference on the problem of autocephaly and autonomy as well as the way of their declaring. For the last time these issues were considered at the Council’s session in 1993. The Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate in its session of January 23, 2010, has closely examined the course and the results of work of the commission mentioned, regarding which it has reached certain conclusions, briefly outlined in the resolutions of the Holy Synod (Journal No. 1 of January 23, 2010), and in more detail – in the present letter.



I.

The very consideration of the issues of autocephaly and autonomy in the framework of preparation to the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church testifies to the fact that both the terms for obtaining autocephaly as well as the way of its declaration have not found their unambiguous expression in the canons of the Orthodox Church. Therefore in these questions the Church is being guided by the related canons, tradition and historical precedents. But the canons that clearly and unambiguously explain the terms whose presence would grant the right of autocephaly to the Local Church, as well as the canons, which clearly and unambiguously explicate the very mechanism of attaining the autocephalous status by such Church – do not exist.



If there are no such canons – it is impossible to break them. The attempts are made to accuse the Kyiv Patriarchate of breaking the canons when proclaiming its autocephaly. However, these accusations are not based on the canons as such, but on their engaged interpretation by those who bring accusations. When declaring its autocephaly the Kyiv Patriarchate was guided by Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles, Canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council, interpretations for Canons 17 and 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Canon 38 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and the historical precedents. The ones bringing accusations against us might refer to other canons, or, more precisely - to their interpretation of these canons. But the fact remains unquestioned – the Orthodox Church has no canon on autocephaly.



For that reason the discussion on the subject of autocephaly and the way of its declaration has lasted for more than one century. Declaration of every new autocephaly both in the past and nowadays has always brought about conflicts. We believe that the reason for such conflicts is that declaration of a new autocephalous Church narrows the scope of power of the Church it separates from, or affects its other interests. That is the process described in Canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council takes place: « the vanities of worldly honor brought in under pretext of sacred office».



ІІ.

One can see that even the attempts to find an answer to this question in the framework of preparation to the Council of the Orthodox Church – and this preparation has lasted for more than 40 years, have brought about misunderstanding between the Local Churches. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and other Greek-language Churches insist on the exclusive right of the Ecumenical Patriarch to proclaim autocephaly. The Moscow Patriarchate and other Slavonic Churches believe that the right of declaring autocephaly belongs to the Church from which her part is separating. Have the Churches succeeded to achieve mutual understanding at the meeting in Chambésy in December 2009? Unfortunately they have not.



As we can see from the documents, the commentaries of this event and the related to it official decisions of the Churches, the results of the work of the Inter-Orthodox Preparation Commission remained the preliminary ones, and their further solution is put aside for indefinite term.



So what did the participants reach consent over?



From our point of view the point of their decisions is as follows. To declare autocephaly of the Church it is necessary that upon receiving the petition of autocephaly by a certain church region the Mother Church at its Local Council should give an assessment of ecclesiological, canonical and pastoral pre-requisites for granting autocephaly. If the Council adopts positive decision, the Mother Church notifies it to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which in its turn informs the other Local Churches and finds out the existence of the pan-Orthodox consensus on that issue, manifesting itself in the unanimity of the Councils or the Synods of the Autocephalous Churches. Expressing the consent of the Mother Church and the pan-Orthodox consensus achieved, the Ecumenical Patriarch officially declares the autocephaly of a petitioning Church by issuing the Tomos on Autocephaly, signed by the Ecumenical Patriarch and certified by the signatures of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches, invited by the Ecumenical Patriarch for that end.



What would such mechanism of declaring autocephaly mean in practice?



ІІІ.

In fact it means that proceeding from the sober estimate of the present state of the inter-orthodox relations an autocephaly can never be declared according to these rules. The mechanism suggested is not the way of granting autocephaly, but the way not to grant it. This mechanism is dead-born, and even in the case of its final approval it is fated to remain on paper.



We may understand why the commission members succeeded to approve that particular model - they have no personal concern to recognize autocephaly of any Church in near future. Since every new autocephaly will signify for any of the Churches the loss of a part of its own structure, and respectively – the loss of power and influence.



Therefore with a high degree of probability we may assume that the commission members tended not so much to resolve the problem of autocephaly, as to defend their rights and privileges. But such a way of solution of the problems of ecclesial life comes into contradiction with the tradition of conciliarity of the Universal Orthodoxy.



What gives us ground to make such conclusions?



IV.

First, the commission has not only failed to elaborate any concrete, clear and unambiguous prerequisites (criteria), on the presence of which a Local Church may qualify for the status of autocephaly, but on the whole, has not set it as a goal to clear this question out at all. That is, the commission has left unattended the most important part of the question - defining the prerequisites for autocephaly, having focused attention on the obviously secondary issues – who and how is signing the Tomos on autocephaly.



Second, the commission has not accorded detailed consideration to the most principled issue - whether the Church autocephaly is granted by other Churches or they simply recognize it when certain prerequisites are fulfilled? In fact the history of the Orthodox Church does not know examples of granting autocephaly – practically in all cases when the new autocephalous Churches emerged, the status of autocephaly was not granted, but recognized. That way it was in the ancient times, when the Councils by their canons merely fixed the order which had in fact been established in the relations between the Churches, and did not institute anything new. The same way it happened in more recent times, when the Churches, autocephalous in fact, attained recognition from the Patriarchate of Constantinople and other Churches after a certain period of non-recognition (sometimes for 141 years, as in case of the Russian Orthodox Church).



It is understandable that the commission members represent the local Churches that have already attained recognition of their autocephaly – sometimes after the decades of staying isolated from communion with other Churches. That is why it would be to their advantage to secure all the rights and privileges for themselves, leaving for the Churches that claim for recognition of their autocephaly the position of applicants deprived of rights.



Seeing that, we would like to note that such way of problem-solving is more often used in the secular diplomacy, which is mostly guided by the profit of the parties rather than by truth and justice. But in the solution of the problems of ecclesiastical life it is not the current interests of individual Churches that should be in priority, but truth and justice as fulfillment of the law of God!



In fact, the participants of the session in Chambésy, among the other, took the trouble of determining the future destiny of the Orthodox Churches of Ukraine, Macedonia and Montenegro, Orthodox Church in America, as well as the destiny of the Orthodox Church in Japan, Moldavia, and Estonia. But no representatives of these Churches were involved either officially or unofficially in elaboration of the decisions which are of importance for their further being. It is obvious that such way of discussion of important issues of ecclesiastical life does not comply either with the spirit of the God’s justice and of the Gospel’s brotherly love (сf. John 7:51) , or with the practice of the Ecumenical and pious Local Councils, whereat even indubitable heretics had a chance to express their stance.



V.

The mechanism suggested in Chambésy vests the Mother Churches with all rights, but in no way determines the rights of the Church claiming for recognition of its autocephaly. The Ukrainian Church could experience to the full extent the deficiency and hopelessness of such mechanism by its own example.



The Council of the UOC of November 1-3, 1991 addressed the Patriarch of Moscow and the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church with a clearly grounded petition of autocephaly – just the way the commission suggests. In response to this petition the UOC was only given a promise to consider it at the earliest session of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. All at once the administration of the ROC prepared and conducted upheaval in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, having illegally dismissed its Primate from office.



Since then in accordance with its Statute the ROC should have conducted the Local Council twice – in 1995 and 2000. However, in contravention of the Statute, the Council never convened, and in 2000 the rule to convoke the council every five years was abolished at all.



Due to the necessity to elect a new Patriarch of Moscow instead of the deceased Alexy II, in 2009 the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church was convoked. But this Council as well, in breach of the resolution of the Council of Bishops of the ROC adopted in April 1992, did not consider the petition of the UOC on granting autocephaly and did not adopt any resolution on that matter. It is obvious that this petition will remain unconsidered – probably till the time of convocation of the new Local Council meant to elect a new Patriarch of Moscow or even longer.



The Councils of Kyiv Patriarchate have repeatedly addressed the Church of Constantinople, which is historically the Mother Church for the Church in Ukraine, with a request to consider the issue of recognition of autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. But these requests have been also left without due consideration and response by the present.



Taking all that into account – the question arises – is it possible that the mechanism which have proved its inefficiency at the example of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church may turn to be effective in future?



VI.

Realization of the mechanism of obtaining autocephaly proposed by the Commission in Chambésy faces one more essential problem in case of Ukraine. That is: which of the two Churches – the Patriarchate of Moscow or that of Constantinople – should be considered the Mother Church to be addressed with the petition of autocephaly? It is known that the Patriarchate of Constantinople rightly considers itself to be the Mother Church of the Ukrainian Church. But the Moscow Patriarchate also claims its rights for that status as well. Consequently, it is obvious that the autocephaly of the UOC, declared by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, will not receive its recognition from Moscow and vice versa. In what way this problem is to be solved is not explained by the Commission’s decision.



Neither does it explain what the Church wanting autocephaly should do if one or more Churches refuse to sign the Tomos of Autocephaly. For more than four decades the Local Churches can not coincide in opinion on a number of important issues – so is it possible that the Churches wanting recognition of their autocephalous status will have to wait as long as the Universal Orthodoxy has been waiting the convocation the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church?



VII.

As we may see, the results of the commission’s work raise more questions than give answers to them. It cannot but upset, since we see that under the guise of the sacred office the vanities of worldly honor, denounced by the Third Ecumenical Council in the decision on autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus, steal into the life of the Church of Christ.



Therefore we ask You to help forward that in accordance with the provisions of the Holy Scripture and the traditions of conciliarity of the Church of Christ the representatives of our Local Church had a possibility to take part in the work of the pan-Orthodox commissions and sessions, considering the issues of autocephaly, autonomy and diptychs.



It is our conviction that only the resolutions worked out with participation of the representatives of our Church and of the other Churches taking interest in these matters, may be true, effective and beneficial for the unity of the Orthodox Church.



One of the chief pre-requisites of autocephaly is the state independence of a certain nation (Apostolic Canon 34, Canon 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Canon 38 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council). On that ground the autocephaly of the Georgian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Russian, Greek, Romanian, Polish, Albanian Churches, of the Orthodox Church of Czech Lands and Slovakia was declared. Since 1991 Ukraine has been an independent state. The Church with the center in Kyiv has existed for more than 1000 years, and the majority of its believers want its autocephalous organization, recognition of the status of the Local Church and the appropriate place in the Diptychs. Therefore we are asking yet again not to ignore these strivings and not to leave unconsidered our repeated and grounded requests.



At the same time, seeing that for many years the hearts of numerous hierarchs have remained closed and indifferent to the problems of the Ukrainian Church and its requests, we place the greatest hope in solution of all these matters not on the princes and the sons of men, but on the Chief Shepherd Lord Jesus Christ – the only Righteous Judge, by Whose mercy and grace the Ukrainian Church exists and performs its ministry even in the present state of artificial isolation and non-recognition.



We are going to strengthen and widen further on the Kyiv Patriarchate - the Local Church of the Ukrainian nation, and will do everything that depends on us in order to overcome its separation, anchoring our hope on the mercy of God and expecting Your understanding and the respective God-pleasing actions.



With love in Christ




On behalf of the Holy Synod

of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate



Filaret,

PATRIARCH OF KYIV

AND ALL RUS-UKRAINE
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #50 on: January 29, 2010, 11:42:57 PM »

The Ukraine has always been an integral part of Mother Russia and always will be.  I still hold that Ukrainians are a type of Russians, much like Texans are a type of Americans but with a separate subculture.  Ukraine cannot and must not be permitted to come under western/secular influences by Moscow.  They are part of the Third Rome which shall never set and they must remain united to her in all things, including religious.

This is my last word on this subject.  I love all people but my views are my own and I cannot change them.  However, I do not wish to take up all my time on this forum fighting over something which be true and others do not.  I know what the Russians have taught me and that is good enough for me.

Heorhij,

I don't know what to tell you.  Is there any culture on this Earth that reflects the Gospel in its entirety?  Sure Russian culture has some flaws, but so do all cultures.  What would you, as a Ukrainian prefer, to be a second class citizen under the RC Polish/Austrian Commonwealth.  Or do you prefer secular, western culture lead by the USA and its allies.  This culture which preaches decadent hedonism and materialism which its spreads by "democracy" and political correctness.  What choice do we have?  What death is slower then, I guess.
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
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: 37,483



« Reply #51 on: January 29, 2010, 11:58:37 PM »



Because nothing ever changes in Russia.

Interesting, so Russia has found the secret of stasis?
 

Quote
As far as "Orthodox culture," I simply do not know what that is. Was the culture of Domostroy, a culture of flogging wives and serfs to death
,

Can you quote Domostroy on this?

Quote
a culture of burning Protopop Avvacum (and countless other Old Believers, off record) at stake or in their houses,


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Joan_of_arc_burning_at_stake.jpg

Quote
a culture of Princess Sophia Augusta Frederica von Anhaldt-Zerbst (a.k.a. Catherine the "Great")


Really got that thing with Catherine, don't you?  Why do you insist on calling her a German if you don't care what the Russians do?

Quote
indulging in carnal orgies with dozens of lovers, of which the last was 20 year old when she was in her 70-s - "Orthodox?" Then I am a Zoroastrian...


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
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #52 on: February 01, 2010, 12:24:47 AM »

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

I don't have a dog in this fight in that I'm neither Russian nor Ukrainian, but I will point out that I find it rather difficult to understand spoken Ukrainian.  Last summer I worked a translator for a group of Ukrainians - the adults all spoke Russian so that wasn't a problem, but many of the children would respond in Ukrainian when I spoke to them in Russian and it took a bit of getting used to before I could make much sense of it.  A common complaint I've heard from russophones around the former USSR is that local education systems usually do a very poor job at teaching the local language, which is another factor to consider. 
Logged
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: 12,923



WWW
« Reply #53 on: February 01, 2010, 12:53:34 AM »


I will give it consideration.  :-)

I can only assume, as you stated, the folks you were with were Ukrainian.  The adults spoke Russian (remnants of Soviet times) and yet the kids spoke Ukrainian.  That's great news.  That means the schools are teaching the next generation of Ukrainians, Ukrainian!

When I traveled to Ukraine, some 15 or so years ago, I managed to bring some babtsi (grannies) to tears.  We asked our tour bus driver to stop and pick up some grannies walking on the road.  We had more than enough room, and they were carrying bags of stuff. 

When we sat with them, my mom and I spoke in Ukrainian, of course...and they tried.  Then the one babusia, with tears in her eyes, looks at my mom, and says it makes her soul happy to hear her mother tongue being used so clearly, because she has forgotten it, and not heard it since she was a child.  She herself was using rather broken Ukrainian...more Russian than anything.  Not her fault.  It was the system.

When she asked which city we were from...we told her the U.S....which made her cry and all the babtsi put their covered heads together and were wiping their tears.  They said they were touched to know that Ukrainian, their language, while it had died in it's own homeland, was preserved and thriving outside of Ukraine.  They had never thought that the language and love of country would have survived Communism, much less outside the borders of Ukraine.

I will never forget that moment....and if anything, it has made me more determined than ever to speak Ukrainian, teach Ukrainian, teach people about Ukraine, be an example of a good Ukrainian.

It really pains me that so many people on this forum are so set against Ukraine...without even knowing anything about it.  I have family who died, protecting Ukraine.  I had family exiled to Siberia, others shot dead in the streets of Ukraine, because they simply stated that they were Ukrainian, not Russian.

So, to have someone, who doesn't KNOW any better, come and tell us that we are Russian, is like having that bayonet stuck back in our face and being told you are something you are not or you will die.  It's an insult.

Again, I will always choose Orthodoxy and Faith over nationality.  However, NONE of you can claim to have no national pride...whichever country you live in.  I am sure OzGeorge is proud to be an Australian, Ukiemeister is a proud Canadian, Liz is a proud Britisher, Mike is a proud to be Polish, etc.  There's nothing wrong with that.

Now add to that pride, the deaths of your loved ones in defending that nation, and then having someone tell you that you are indeed not who you think, nor does the land your ancestors died for exist, but, in fact belongs to those same people who oppressed, demeaned,  humiliated, stole from you...is unthinkable...and is truly unnecessary.

I have nothing against Russia or any other nation or peoples.  However, I do LOVE Ukraine, her language, her Faith, her people (most of them)....and I find this silly bickering, and baiting of Robb's counterproductive.  He fuels the flames instead of being a good Orthodox Christian and trying to appease...he relishes a good fight.

I know there are many Russians on this forum and I hold them ALL in the highest esteem.  I consider them all my friends (if nothing more than cyber-friendship), and I don't like this whole discussion, which makes it seem that Ukrainians don't like Russians, etc...because it's not true.  Liking your own country and language, doesn't mean you don't like somedoby else's.

That's it.  I am off to bed.  Thanks for listening!  :-)

Peace and hugs all around...

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: 37,483



« Reply #54 on: February 01, 2010, 01:16:10 AM »

But take this into account: 20% of the population in Ukraine is ethnically Russian, descendants to the native Russians Stalin sent in an attempt to help Russify the area.

Let's not rewrite history.  yes, Stalin (a Georgian, btw) was up to his usual antics, but there was a large Russian population in what is now Ukraine before, particularly as a large part of what is now Ukraine was "New Russia" (having never been ruled by the Rus', Kiev would have no claim even if it were Rurik's sole heir), lands the Soviets annexed to Ukraine, etc.  maps are on this thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21477.msg324829.html#msg324829

There were plenty of Russians in Ukraine under the Czars.  Stalin didn't introduce them.

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
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #55 on: February 01, 2010, 04:01:30 AM »

From a modern perspective, Ukraine is a relatively young nation, with parts of it which were carved up and run by various empires, not all of which had its best interests. Reading up a little bit on Galician history and its various independence movements in the twentieth century has reminded me of some of that. (My Ukraininian connection is there). But Ukraine is an independent country now, which is as it should be, and I hope it gets its house in order.

This whole Russia versus the rest of hedonistic Europe - I wonder if anybody really buys into that except maybe some of the hard-core Russian nationalists.

I do recognize a shared spiritual patrimony of the East Slavs (that is - the current territory of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia) - that goes back to "Kievan Rus" and the baptism of St. Vladimir (or Volodimyr if you prefer). Whatever the situation with the borders and what not, that's a common heritage.

I was at a (Latin-rite) Catholic mass years ago celebrated by a Czech priest for the local Czech community in London, and he spent an entire sermon on SS. Cyril and Methodius (who hailed from Moravia) and their role in spreading Christianity to the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe. In a wider Slavic sense, this part of that patrimony as well. He spoke of them with pride. All Christian of Slavic heritage owe a debt to their work.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 04:03:23 AM by John Larocque » 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 #56 on: February 01, 2010, 11:27:59 AM »

Heorhij,

I don't know what to tell you.  Is there any culture on this Earth that reflects the Gospel in its entirety?  Sure Russian culture has some flaws, but so do all cultures.  What would you, as a Ukrainian prefer, to be a second class citizen under the RC Polish/Austrian Commonwealth.  Or do you prefer secular, western culture lead by the USA and its allies.  This culture which preaches decadent hedonism and materialism which its spreads by "democracy" and political correctness.  What choice do we have?  What death is slower then, I guess.

I choose West and democracy. Because it does not force me to choose good over evil.
Logged

Love never fails.
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 #57 on: February 01, 2010, 12:28:51 PM »

Heorhij,

I don't know what to tell you.  Is there any culture on this Earth that reflects the Gospel in its entirety?  Sure Russian culture has some flaws, but so do all cultures.  What would you, as a Ukrainian prefer, to be a second class citizen under the RC Polish/Austrian Commonwealth.  Or do you prefer secular, western culture lead by the USA and its allies.  This culture which preaches decadent hedonism and materialism which its spreads by "democracy" and political correctness.  What choice do we have?  What death is slower then, I guess.

I choose West and democracy. Because it does not force me to choose good over evil.

I'm going to call you out on this one. It is impossible to say that democracy is a protection against evil/tyranny. In 1917, the Bolsheviks figured out they couldn't win the election--they decided to take power by other means. In 1933, Hitler was democratically elected--the other dominant choices were Communists and Democratic Socialists.

A very high-ranking Soviet official once said to a European prince: “Your ancestors exploited the people, claiming that they ruled by the Grace of God, but we are doing much better, we exploit the people in the name of the people.”

"Democracy itself can be primitive and barbaric, or highly civilized, or decadently post-civilized, or totalitarian. The latter two trends are easily visible throughout our Western world. "The people" are capable of electing monsters, as we have seen in Palestine, where they elected Hamas, or in Zimbabwe, where they once elected Robert Mugabe."

Now you might opposed to Putin and his ilk, and you might have good reason to do so, but don't hide behind the wraith called "Democracy." It has caused more bloodshed than any other ideology.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #58 on: February 01, 2010, 12:42:37 PM »

This is starting to move into the realm of politics, folks.  Keep it on the historical development of Ukraine and its cultural/ethnic ties to Russia (and preferably religious ties as this is the Religious Topics board) or it's getting moved to the private forum.

-Schultz, Religious Topics section moderator
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 12:43:00 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: 37,483



« Reply #59 on: February 01, 2010, 01:00:24 PM »

I was at a (Latin-rite) Catholic mass years ago celebrated by a Czech priest for the local Czech community in London, and he spent an entire sermon on SS. Cyril and Methodius (who hailed from Moravia) and their role in spreading Christianity to the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe. In a wider Slavic sense, this part of that patrimony as well. He spoke of them with pride. All Christian of Slavic heritage owe a debt to their work.


Actually they hailed from Thessalonika (that's another issue) and were sent to Moravia: St. Methodius' disciple Gorazd hailed from Moravia, which was why he remained when the Franks came and imposed the Latin rite and filioque and expelled the Eastern rite priests.  St. Gorazd may have founded the episcopacy at Krakow (he appears on its calendar).  The reviver of the Orthodox Church in the Czech and Slovak lands took the name Gorazd, now the neo-martyr Gorazd.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 01:00:52 PM 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
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #60 on: February 01, 2010, 02:20:47 PM »

I caught that error about ten minutes after I posted it! Still, one cannot look at them with anything but pride and devotion. While researching (i.e. browsing through Wikipedia and Catholic Answers) I glanced upon this page:

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

SS. Olga and Vladimir, and Cyril and Methodius are in good company. For slavophiles, I would add SS. Boris I and Sava I.

Quote
Below is a partial list of saints who are called equal-to-the-apostles:

    * Mary Magdalene (1st century)
    * Photine, the Samaritan Woman (1st century)
    * Thekla (1st century)
    * Abercius of Hieropolis (2nd century)
    * Helena of Constantinople (ca. 250 - ca. 330)
    * Constantine I, the Great (ca. 272 - 337)
    * Nino of Georgia (ca. 296 - ca. 338 or 340)
    * Patrick of Ireland (5th century)
    * Cyril (827 - 869)
    * Methodius (826 - 885)
    * Boris I of Bulgaria (died 907)
    * Olga of Kiev (ca. 890 - 969)
    * Vladimir (ca. 958 - 1015)
    * Sava I of Serbia (1175 - 1235)
    * Cosmas of Aetolia (1714 - 1779)
    * Innocent of Alaska (1797 - 1879)
    * Nicholas of Japan (1836 - 1912)

« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 02:22:14 PM by John Larocque » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #61 on: February 01, 2010, 05:37:49 PM »

Mike is a proud to be Polish, etc.

Actually I consider myself a Belarus. No offence taken Smiley

I do recognize a shared spiritual patrimony of the East Slavs (that is - the current territory of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia) - that goes back to "Kievan Rus" and the baptism of St. Vladimir (or Volodimyr if you prefer). Whatever the situation with the borders and what not, that's a common heritage.


In the beginning of the 11th  century there was a Principality of Polotsk independent from Kiev (but later it was conquered by Vladimir).
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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: 12,923



WWW
« Reply #62 on: February 01, 2010, 06:05:03 PM »

Mike is a proud to be Polish, etc.
Actually I consider myself a Belarus. No offence taken


Good!  Because no offense was meant!
 Wink
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 06:06:23 PM by LizaSymonenko » 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
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #63 on: February 01, 2010, 06:20:49 PM »

I do recognize a shared spiritual patrimony of the East Slavs (that is - the current territory of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia) - that goes back to "Kievan Rus" and the baptism of St. Vladimir (or Volodimyr if you prefer). Whatever the situation with the borders and what not, that's a common heritage.

That's a very tough and complicated issue. Historians like our own Isa (ialmisry) will readily quote ancient chronicles, but those were obviously tambered with by Russian imperial brownnosers-historians like Karamsin and other. In the 10th - 12th centuries the population of what is now the European part of the Russian Federation was, essentially, Finnish (which is reflected in thousands of Finnish toponyms like Moskva - Fin. "rotten water," Ryazan', Moksha, Suzdal', Murom, etc. etc. etc.). Princes of Suzdal' and other "Russian" areas are mentioned in the chronicles to go to WAR (!!!) on Rus (under the latter is meant the part of the modern Ukraine that is near the river Dnipro). The myth that the lands northeast of the Dnipro at the time of baptism of Rus were inhabited by "Russiye" who actually spoke the same language that the inhabitants of Kiev spoke was created after the fall of Constantinople in the second half of the 15-th century, to justify the legitimacy of the Moscow principality as the "Third Rome."
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 06:21:38 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #64 on: February 01, 2010, 06:50:01 PM »

Whether or not Ukrainians are the "true Russians" and that modern Russia and its imperial predecessors has somehow co-opted something that is not theirs (including the very name Russia) ... is not really my point. It is that the liturgical texts and practices of the Eastern Slavs - what I call the spiritual patrimony - is something that they share.

If this were anything other than Russia or Ukraine, I don't think this would be an issue. Let's move half a continent away and come up with something like the following: "Spain and Portugal, both seafaring nations, were linguistically close as well as immediate neighbors and at one time  were even  under the same monarchy. As part of the Latin West, they shared a common spiritual patrimony including the Latin Mass, and despite local variations, they also shared many pious and devotional practices." Nobody disputes that Spain and Portugal are separate countries, but they have many things in common, both linguistically, culturally and spiritually.

Also, in the pre-Nikonian era, did the liturgical practices of Ukrainians differ drastically from their Eastern cousins?
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 06:52:36 PM by John Larocque » 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: 37,483



« Reply #65 on: February 01, 2010, 06:54:33 PM »

Whether or not Ukrainians are the "true Russians" and that modern Russia and its imperial predecessors has somehow co-opted something that is not theirs (including the very name Russia) ... is not really my point. It is that the liturgical texts and practices of the Eastern Slavs - what I call the spiritual patrimony - is something that they share.

If this were anything other than Russia or Ukraine, I don't think this would be an issue. Let's move half a continent away and come up with something like the following: "Spain and Portugal, both seafaring nations, were linguistically close as well as immediate neighbors and at one time  were even  under the same monarchy. As part of the Latin West, they shared a common spiritual patrimony including the Latin Mass, and despite local variations, they also shared many pious and devotional practices." Nobody disputes that Spain and Portugal are separate countries, but they have many things in common, both linguistically, culturally and spiritually.

Also, in the pre-Nikonian era, did the liturgical practices of Ukrainians differ drastically from their Eastern cousins?

The Portuguese may dispute how clear that has been to the Spaniards.

Mike is a proud to be Polish, etc.
Actually I consider myself a Belarus. No offence taken


Good!  Because no offense was meant!
 Wink

I was hoping that would be resolved, and so I refrained from lighting a match, just in case...
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 06:56:52 PM 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
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #66 on: February 01, 2010, 06:57:21 PM »

If this were anything other than Russia or Ukraine, I don't think this would be an issue. Let's move half a continent away and come up with something like the following: "Spain and Portugal, both seafaring nations, were linguistically close as well as immediate neighbors and at one time  were even  under the same monarchy. As part of the Latin West, they shared a common spiritual patrimony including the Latin Mass, and despite local variations, they also shared many pious and devotional practices." Nobody disputes that Spain and Portugal are separate countries, but they have many things in common, both linguistically, culturally and spiritually.

But that cannot really be said, in all honesty, about Ukraine and Russia because "Russkiye" ("Great Russians") MADE UP this "sharing."

Also, in the pre-Nikonian era, did the liturgical practices of Ukrainians differ drastically from their Eastern cousins?

I am not an expert in this, but I believe that yes, they did. I'll do some research on this and get back to you later.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 06:57:43 PM by Heorhij » 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: 37,483



« Reply #67 on: February 01, 2010, 07:05:00 PM »

Also, in the pre-Nikonian era, did the liturgical practices of Ukrainians differ drastically from their Eastern cousins?

I am not an expert in this, but I believe that yes, they did. I'll do some research on this and get back to you later.

That would be odd, as they shared a hierarchy for most of the time before Nikon.
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
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #68 on: February 01, 2010, 07:06:17 PM »

Nobody disputes that Spain and Portugal are separate countries

The Portuguese may dispute how clear that has been to the Spaniards.

Oh, the choice of Portugal and Spain was a deliberate one... I don't know if Portuguese were ever at one time referred to as "little Spaniards" with their neighbor being "Great Spain". But one never knows.

Canada and the United States don't have the same rancorous history as other countries, but I did at one time refer to Canada as the "Ukraine" to the United States' "Russia." Every time there's a war vote in the U.N. or NATO, there's always an extra international vote for the U.S. when there needs to be one... "Well, you guys speak English up there..." I wonder if Europeans view Canadians that much differently than their American counterparts.

« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 07:07:12 PM by John Larocque » 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: 37,483



« Reply #69 on: February 01, 2010, 07:19:32 PM »

I do recognize a shared spiritual patrimony of the East Slavs (that is - the current territory of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia) - that goes back to "Kievan Rus" and the baptism of St. Vladimir (or Volodimyr if you prefer). Whatever the situation with the borders and what not, that's a common heritage.

That's a very tough and complicated issue. Historians like our own Isa (ialmisry)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22136.msg396195/topicseen.html#msg396195

Quote
will readily quote ancient chronicles, but those were obviously tambered with by Russian imperial brownnosers-historians like Karamsin and other.

Odd that you should bring up tampering with history.


But that cannot really be said, in all honesty, about Ukraine and Russia because "Russkiye" ("Great Russians") MADE UP this "sharing."

Russian, Ukrainian (and Belorussian) shared linguistic, cultural and spiritual patrimony is a fact. Reconcile yourself to that fact.

Quote
In the 10th - 12th centuries the population of what is now the European part of the Russian Federation was, essentially, Finnish (which is reflected in thousands of Finnish toponyms like Moskva - Fin. "rotten water," Ryazan', Moksha, Suzdal', Murom, etc. etc. etc.). Princes of Suzdal' and other "Russian" areas are mentioned in the chronicles to go to WAR (!!!) on Rus (under the latter is meant the part of the modern Ukraine that is near the river Dnipro).
May we have a quote?

Quote
The myth that the lands northeast of the Dnipro at the time of baptism of Rus were inhabited by "Russiye" who actually spoke the same language that the inhabitants of Kiev spoke was created after the fall of Constantinople in the second half of the 15-th century, to justify the legitimacy of the Moscow principality as the "Third Rome."

They were writing graffitti in East Slavonic and in Glagolitic letters in Novgorod (isn't that in Russia, near Finland) where the Kievan state started, long before Constantinople (and Kiev's) fall.
Viator, Volume 8
http://books.google.ro/books?id=dGVp7FDTvmwC&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=glagolitic+novgorod+cathedral&source=bl&ots=JUbMjkHQgk&sig=qLLljH06bmH18vDFgPZ9NSFx_P4&hl=ro&ei=ZGBnS7ySN5T-nAehrIX4Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=glagolitic%20novgorod%20cathedral&f=false
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 07:20:01 PM 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 #70 on: February 02, 2010, 03:13:05 AM »

Liz,

Your story is a heartfelt one.  I never meant to argue that the Ukrainian people were completely the same as the Russians.  However, as many have pointed out the two cultures have much in common.  Russia emerged as the defender of Orthodoxy in the 15th century for obvious reasons and this naturally lead to a pan Slavic outlook towards all their neighbors.  All Ukrainians who were Orthodox had to look upon Russia and her Czar as their defender since no other nation on Earth at the time was in a position to protect Orthodoxy from Western domination.

It was impossible at the time for Ukraine to have type of national or ecclesiastical independence from Moscow without having been swallowed up by the Poles, Turks, or Austrians, who would have obviously pushed their own religions on the people (and did as was the case with the Poles).

When Russia fought back the Poles and acquired new territory , she immediately threw off the Greek Catholic control and returned those territories to Orthodoxy.  If not for Russia then all of the Ukraine could today be Catholic still.  Even if Ukrainians don't want to admit it, they do owe a lot to the Russian nation for having protected her and helping to return her people to the Church.
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 #71 on: February 02, 2010, 04:00:32 AM »

I never meant to argue that the Ukrainian people were completely the same as the Russians.

Ukrainians are Russians.

*cough cough*
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
vasily
Warned
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox church in america
Posts: 189



« Reply #72 on: March 03, 2011, 03:57:19 PM »

 I think it is time to establish a Patriarchate in the Ukraine, which will hopefully unify the three existing Orthodox factions. This unity can only strengthen the church and create closer ties with the Orthodox in Poland and Czech Republic. Then they can deal with the Eastern Rite dilemma and the tensions in Western Ukraine.

 My grandparents emigrated to the Us, and settled in Jersey City,NJ. There existed a large community of Rusyns from mainly the Lemko (Carpathian Mountains) regions of Poland. They all went to the same church. The Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. Because the Bishops were ethnic Russians, fights actually broke out between parishioners of a more Ukrainian "flavor" and those that did not want to be "russified". In Jersey City, there exists, because of all this turmoil, a Ukrainian Catholic and Byzantine Catholic Church, along with the Russian Orthodox Church.
This same pattern existed where these people settled in the US. Sometimes even with an Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the mix.

 For some reason, I feel that what occurred here is somewhat related to the situation in the Ukraine. A divided church is disunity in faith.
 
 
Logged
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: 12,923



WWW
« Reply #73 on: March 03, 2011, 04:11:09 PM »

In Jersey City, there exists, because of all this turmoil, a Ukrainian Catholic and Byzantine Catholic Church, along with the Russian Orthodox Church.
This same pattern existed where these people settled in the US. Sometimes even with an Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the mix.


...don't forget that just 30 miles outside of Jersey City, in South Bound Brook, is the Consistory for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA.

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
vasily
Warned
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox church in america
Posts: 189



« Reply #74 on: March 03, 2011, 07:51:37 PM »

Yes ,your right.  In the Passaic/Clifton and Bayonne NJ., there exists Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox, along with the Eastern Rite counterparts.
What do you thing of the possibility of establishing a Patriarchate ( a legit one) in the Ukraine?
Logged
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: 12,923



WWW
« Reply #75 on: March 03, 2011, 08:03:57 PM »


I am all for it!

I believe with God's help in time, this will happen.

I pray for it every day.
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
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 0.333 seconds with 103 queries.