OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 22, 2014, 12:41:15 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Kiev/Moscow Patriarch (also known as "Another thread on Ukraine")  (Read 8779 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,021



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
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,425


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: 37,661



« 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: 13,021



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: 37,661



« 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
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,473


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: 37,661



« 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: 13,021



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: 37,661



« 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: 37,661



« 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: 37,661



« 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: 13,021



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: 13,021



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 0.16 seconds with 58 queries.