OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 28, 2014, 05:37:04 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Byzantine Rite Under Roman Pontiff Understanding of Their Religious Affiliation  (Read 1397 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,084



« on: July 23, 2013, 12:09:30 AM »

I give the tours of my GOAA church during our annual Grecian Festival.  In the course of the tours, I explain the symbolism behind the architecture and iconography of the church.  It ends up being a 40 minute summary of an understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  When I get to the Bishop's Throne, I explain that the throne reminds us that the church is not a worship community unto itself, but part of a diocese under a bishop, who is part of a synod or a provincial synod, which is led by a primate or first hierarch, who commemorates his fellow primates of the Holy Orthodox Churches. I then list the Holy Orthodox Churches by the Dyptics, explain autocephaly, and the unity of the One Holy Orthodox Church, through Faith, Dogma, and Holy Communion.  When the tour is completed, I ask for questions.  (Earlier in the talk, I have summarized the development of the early church in the Roman Empire, and the Great Schism). This year, an alert, kind women, raised her hand, thanked me for an interesting tour, and told me she was Ukrainian and Orthodox.  I asked her to which parish she belonged.  She said Pokrova.  The sign outside of that church says "Pokrova Greco Catholic Church;" ( it's also immediately next to the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church, the parish which last year hosted the OCA's 17th All-American Council).  I politely told her that was a Byzantine Rite Church of the Roman Catholic Church, and it was not Orthodox.  She kept insisting that it was an Orthodox Church.  While not arguing, we continued to go back and forth.  I finally stated her parish was under the authority of the Pope of Rome, smiled and walked away.

I am interested in your comments about this topic.  Is this a common perception among Eastern Rite Roman Catholics?  How can they think of themselves as "Orthodox," when they commemorate the Roman Pontiff during their Divine Services?  Why in the Old World, such as in Ukraine, do they fight over individual churches, if the Byzantine Rite faithful think of themselves as "Orthodox?"  What difference do they perceive between the Roman Catholic Byzantine Rite, and the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church? How do they understand the Great Schism, if they view themselves as "Orthodox?"

Your analysis of this topic and comments are welcome.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,692



« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2013, 12:42:42 AM »

IIRC, Liza mentioned once about it being especially common for Ukrainians on both sides to not realize there's a difference.

One older Ukrainian Catholic lady I spoke to, upon hearing I was Orthodox, told me that she and I were the same, except she "sided with the Pope" and I didn't.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2013, 12:53:51 AM »

I give the tours of my GOAA church during our annual Grecian Festival.  In the course of the tours, I explain the symbolism behind the architecture and iconography of the church.  It ends up being a 40 minute summary of an understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  When I get to the Bishop's Throne, I explain that the throne reminds us that the church is not a worship community unto itself, but part of a diocese under a bishop, who is part of a synod or a provincial synod, which is led by a primate or first hierarch, who commemorates his fellow primates of the Holy Orthodox Churches. I then list the Holy Orthodox Churches by the Dyptics, explain autocephaly, and the unity of the One Holy Orthodox Church, through Faith, Dogma, and Holy Communion.  When the tour is completed, I ask for questions.  (Earlier in the talk, I have summarized the development of the early church in the Roman Empire, and the Great Schism). This year, an alert, kind women, raised her hand, thanked me for an interesting tour, and told me she was Ukrainian and Orthodox.  I asked her to which parish she belonged.  She said Pokrova.  The sign outside of that church says "Pokrova Greco Catholic Church;" ( it's also immediately next to the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church, the parish which last year hosted the OCA's 17th All-American Council).  I politely told her that was a Byzantine Rite Church of the Roman Catholic Church, and it was not Orthodox.  She kept insisting that it was an Orthodox Church.  While not arguing, we continued to go back and forth.  I finally stated her parish was under the authority of the Pope of Rome, smiled and walked away.

I am interested in your comments about this topic.  Is this a common perception among Eastern Rite Roman Catholics?  How can they think of themselves as "Orthodox," when they commemorate the Roman Pontiff during their Divine Services?  Why in the Old World, such as in Ukraine, do they fight over individual churches, if the Byzantine Rite faithful think of themselves as "Orthodox?"  What difference do they perceive between the Roman Catholic Byzantine Rite, and the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church? How do they understand the Great Schism, if they view themselves as "Orthodox?"

Your analysis of this topic and comments are welcome.
I had a dear Coptic friend who had submitted to the Vatican.  He insisted that the occurrence of the word "Orthodox" in his services books was proof of the open mindedness of the "Coptic Catholic Church."  He never noticed the occurrence of the word Catholic in our service books (where, of course, he got his).

There are a lot of them who insist it is the same thing-which quickly becomes "since it's the same thing, why not join us."  I remember the Metropolitan of Lebanon mentioning that as a recurring theme with the Maronites about the educational system, for instance.

Of course, they are claiming to be "Orthodox," the same way they claim to be "Catholic." So it's consistent.

The UGCC thinks of itself as the original Ukrainian Orthodox Church, seeing the Vatican's schism as something that Constantinople and moreover, of course, the evil Russian Czar tried to impose on them.  Ask them then why celebrate the "Union of Brest," and they will say it was just a political settlement, not a theological one, with the King of Poland (it's the only time they will admit that it, and not the adherence to Orthodoxy, was politically motivated).  Since the UGCC was (and overwhelmingly, still is) limited to the West Ukraine, they have an idea of being the "ancient Church of West Ukraine" and blame Orthodoxy on the Russians. Problem is, as we have seen in another thread, 27% at least of the population of West Ukraine before Soviet annexation confessed Orthodoxy (for comparison, see the hue and cry-rightly so-of the Soviets trying to affect the demographics of Latvia with Russians making up 34% (with the Ukrainians and Belarus, which the Latvians see as all the same, 42%) after half a century of Soviet occupation.  After decades of Soviet occupation, Russians, Orthodox or otherwise, in West Ukraine made up only 5% of the population.  Thus all the churches supposedly belong to them-even if the Soviets built them.

They try to finesse around the Vatican's schism, with Spitting East Syndrome.
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
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,958



« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2013, 02:07:20 AM »

Those 27% were living in other areas, which are still Orthodox (though not always canonical) today, such as Rivne, which also was Polish between the war, but never had a strong Greek Catholic presence.

The 5% Orthodox today rather refer to the Greek Catholic core areas.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2013, 07:57:30 AM »

Those 27% were living in other areas, which are still Orthodox (though not always canonical) today, such as Rivne, which also was Polish between the war, but never had a strong Greek Catholic presence.
They still count. Rivne and Volyn (Polish 2nd Republic), Zakarpattia (Interwar Czechoslovakia) , Chernivtsi (Greater Romania) and Khmelnytskyi (Russian Empire/Soviet Ukraine) remain not only overwhelmingly Orthodox, but canonical as well.
The 5% Orthodox today rather refer to the Greek Catholic core areas.
The Orthodox (if one counts the non-canonical) make far more than 5% of the L'viv, Ivano-Franivsk and Ternopil oblasts.  The fact remains, outside of the Kiev region, the "Kiev Patriarchate" and the "Ukrainian Autocephalous Church" really remain in the competition (especially the later) only in areas where the UGCC remains in the running.

In L'viv, counting the UGCC's Latin correligionists in Mj-Abp. Shevchuk's column (only fair, if I'm counting non-canonical Orthodox), Orthodoxy, i.e. the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, may be as low as 2%.  Count the schismatic Orthodox, however, and the Orthodox make up a third of the oblast. And that is the UGCC's stronghold-in Ivano-Frankivsk and Ternopil it becomes almost 1 to 1.

Outside of those three oblasts, the UGCC does not have much of a presence, being not only overwhelmingly outnumbered not only by the Ukrainian Orthodox and, separately, the schismatic Orthodox, but even by their Latin co-religionists (something that should be looked into). Only in Donetsk does the UGCC outnumber the UAOC (while still lagging behind their Latin brothers, making up just over a fourth of the "Kiev Patriarch's" numbers, and far, far behind the UOC); in Odessa, the UGCC is almost twice as large as the UAOC while almost half the size of their Latin ordinary's flock, but just an eighth the size of the "Kiev Patriarch" and dwarfed (<5%) by the UOC; in Zhytomyr the UAOC runs just behind the UGCC, which is dwarfed (<5%) by the Latin ordinary of Zhytomyr-"Kiev, even smaller in comparison with the "Kiev Patriarchate" and smaller still in comparison to the UOC.

This is, if one counts their Ruthenian Eparchy of Mukacheve (which is iffy talking to the UGCC)as separate-there in Zakarpattia, the canonical Orthodox do not need their schismatic brethren to outnumber the Vatican's Ruthenians and Latins in the oblast. It is comparable to Ivano-Franivsk and Ternopil in being almost 1 to 1, but in the Orthodox favor and more homogeneous, the canonical Orthodox by themselves making up over half of the oblast, and the latins making up a fifth of the Vatican's flock there.

Btw, the episcopal map actually reflects these realities pretty well.
Oblasts                                                                                                                                                        Dioceses of UOC

Eparchies of UGCC
« Last Edit: July 23, 2013, 08:24:53 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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,001


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2013, 08:50:47 PM »

I give the tours of my GOAA church during our annual Grecian Festival.  In the course of the tours, I explain the symbolism behind the architecture and iconography of the church.  It ends up being a 40 minute summary of an understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  When I get to the Bishop's Throne, I explain that the throne reminds us that the church is not a worship community unto itself, but part of a diocese under a bishop, who is part of a synod or a provincial synod, which is led by a primate or first hierarch, who commemorates his fellow primates of the Holy Orthodox Churches. I then list the Holy Orthodox Churches by the Dyptics, explain autocephaly, and the unity of the One Holy Orthodox Church, through Faith, Dogma, and Holy Communion.  When the tour is completed, I ask for questions.  (Earlier in the talk, I have summarized the development of the early church in the Roman Empire, and the Great Schism). This year, an alert, kind women, raised her hand, thanked me for an interesting tour, and told me she was Ukrainian and Orthodox.  I asked her to which parish she belonged.  She said Pokrova.  The sign outside of that church says "Pokrova Greco Catholic Church;" ( it's also immediately next to the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church, the parish which last year hosted the OCA's 17th All-American Council).  I politely told her that was a Byzantine Rite Church of the Roman Catholic Church, and it was not Orthodox.  She kept insisting that it was an Orthodox Church.  While not arguing, we continued to go back and forth.  I finally stated her parish was under the authority of the Pope of Rome, smiled and walked away.

I am interested in your comments about this topic.  Is this a common perception among Eastern Rite Roman Catholics?  How can they think of themselves as "Orthodox," when they commemorate the Roman Pontiff during their Divine Services?  Why in the Old World, such as in Ukraine, do they fight over individual churches, if the Byzantine Rite faithful think of themselves as "Orthodox?"  What difference do they perceive between the Roman Catholic Byzantine Rite, and the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church? How do they understand the Great Schism, if they view themselves as "Orthodox?"

Your analysis of this topic and comments are welcome.
I would turn the question around.  How can you think of yourself a "Catholic" when you don't commemorate the Roman Pontiff during your Divine Services? If you can answer that, and I know you can, you have your answer.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,084



« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2013, 09:51:55 PM »

Ok; never thought of it that way.  Under that logic, though, Roman Catholics of the Latin Rite, can claim to be Orthodox, too; correct?
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,390


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 23, 2013, 10:19:27 PM »

Ok; never thought of it that way.  Under that logic, though, Roman Catholics of the Latin Rite, can claim to be Orthodox, too; correct?

They probably wouldn't, except in a small "o" way, but I suppose they could.  The word "Orthodox" still occurs in the Latin text of their oldest anaphora, although it's not rendered in English as "Orthodox" or "orthodox". 
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,798


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 23, 2013, 10:45:04 PM »

I give the tours of my GOAA church during our annual Grecian Festival.  In the course of the tours, I explain the symbolism behind the architecture and iconography of the church.  It ends up being a 40 minute summary of an understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  When I get to the Bishop's Throne, I explain that the throne reminds us that the church is not a worship community unto itself, but part of a diocese under a bishop, who is part of a synod or a provincial synod, which is led by a primate or first hierarch, who commemorates his fellow primates of the Holy Orthodox Churches. I then list the Holy Orthodox Churches by the Dyptics, explain autocephaly, and the unity of the One Holy Orthodox Church, through Faith, Dogma, and Holy Communion.  When the tour is completed, I ask for questions.  (Earlier in the talk, I have summarized the development of the early church in the Roman Empire, and the Great Schism). This year, an alert, kind women, raised her hand, thanked me for an interesting tour, and told me she was Ukrainian and Orthodox.  I asked her to which parish she belonged.  She said Pokrova.  The sign outside of that church says "Pokrova Greco Catholic Church;" ( it's also immediately next to the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church, the parish which last year hosted the OCA's 17th All-American Council).  I politely told her that was a Byzantine Rite Church of the Roman Catholic Church, and it was not Orthodox.  She kept insisting that it was an Orthodox Church.  While not arguing, we continued to go back and forth.  I finally stated her parish was under the authority of the Pope of Rome, smiled and walked away.

I am interested in your comments about this topic.  Is this a common perception among Eastern Rite Roman Catholics?  How can they think of themselves as "Orthodox," when they commemorate the Roman Pontiff during their Divine Services?  Why in the Old World, such as in Ukraine, do they fight over individual churches, if the Byzantine Rite faithful think of themselves as "Orthodox?"  What difference do they perceive between the Roman Catholic Byzantine Rite, and the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church? How do they understand the Great Schism, if they view themselves as "Orthodox?"

Your analysis of this topic and comments are welcome.

In 20 years I've never met an ethnic born Greek Catholic who identified as Orthodox. My guess is the lady's church was originally Greek Catholic but left for Orthodoxy in the Toth or 1930s split (that created most of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the US) over celibacy and ownership of parish property. St Michael's, Binghamton, NY, in ACROD, is still St Michael's Greek Catholic Church, the name it was founded as. Sometimes such places kept their old name to strengthen their legal claim to the property.

By the way, the English translation of the Liturgy that the Ukrainian Catholic Church uses does use the word 'orthodox' in the Great Entrance for example. Which is great.
Logged

FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,441



WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2013, 11:12:15 PM »

I give the tours of my GOAA church during our annual Grecian Festival.  In the course of the tours, I explain the symbolism behind the architecture and iconography of the church.  It ends up being a 40 minute summary of an understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  When I get to the Bishop's Throne, I explain that the throne reminds us that the church is not a worship community unto itself, but part of a diocese under a bishop, who is part of a synod or a provincial synod, which is led by a primate or first hierarch, who commemorates his fellow primates of the Holy Orthodox Churches. I then list the Holy Orthodox Churches by the Dyptics, explain autocephaly, and the unity of the One Holy Orthodox Church, through Faith, Dogma, and Holy Communion.  When the tour is completed, I ask for questions.  (Earlier in the talk, I have summarized the development of the early church in the Roman Empire, and the Great Schism). This year, an alert, kind women, raised her hand, thanked me for an interesting tour, and told me she was Ukrainian and Orthodox.  I asked her to which parish she belonged.  She said Pokrova.  The sign outside of that church says "Pokrova Greco Catholic Church;" ( it's also immediately next to the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church, the parish which last year hosted the OCA's 17th All-American Council).  I politely told her that was a Byzantine Rite Church of the Roman Catholic Church, and it was not Orthodox.  She kept insisting that it was an Orthodox Church.  While not arguing, we continued to go back and forth.  I finally stated her parish was under the authority of the Pope of Rome, smiled and walked away.

I am interested in your comments about this topic.  Is this a common perception among Eastern Rite Roman Catholics?  How can they think of themselves as "Orthodox," when they commemorate the Roman Pontiff during their Divine Services?  Why in the Old World, such as in Ukraine, do they fight over individual churches, if the Byzantine Rite faithful think of themselves as "Orthodox?"  What difference do they perceive between the Roman Catholic Byzantine Rite, and the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church? How do they understand the Great Schism, if they view themselves as "Orthodox?"

Your analysis of this topic and comments are welcome.

In 20 years I've never met an ethnic born Greek Catholic who identified as Orthodox. My guess is the lady's church was originally Greek Catholic but left for Orthodoxy in the Toth or 1930s split (that created most of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the US) over celibacy and ownership of parish property. St Michael's, Binghamton, NY, in ACROD, is still St Michael's Greek Catholic Church, the name it was founded as. Sometimes such places kept their old name to strengthen their legal claim to the property.

By the way, the English translation of the Liturgy that the Ukrainian Catholic Church uses does use the word 'orthodox' in the Great Entrance for example. Which is great.

A little bit of sleuthing reveals that the OP is not incorrect, the particular parish the lady referred to is indeed under the Pontiff: https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&q=Pokrova+Greek+Catholic+Church+Ohio&fb=1&gl=us&hq=Pokrova+Greek+Catholic+Church&hnear=0x8836e97ab54d8ec1:0xe5cd64399c9fd916,Ohio&cid=0,0,5032404408433481045&ei=UEbvUbH_CaS6yQGDh4CgCQ&ved=0CJkBEPwSMAo

http://www.pokrovaparish.com/ChurchHistoryEn.htm
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2013, 01:21:56 AM »

I give the tours of my GOAA church during our annual Grecian Festival.  In the course of the tours, I explain the symbolism behind the architecture and iconography of the church.  It ends up being a 40 minute summary of an understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  When I get to the Bishop's Throne, I explain that the throne reminds us that the church is not a worship community unto itself, but part of a diocese under a bishop, who is part of a synod or a provincial synod, which is led by a primate or first hierarch, who commemorates his fellow primates of the Holy Orthodox Churches. I then list the Holy Orthodox Churches by the Dyptics, explain autocephaly, and the unity of the One Holy Orthodox Church, through Faith, Dogma, and Holy Communion.  When the tour is completed, I ask for questions.  (Earlier in the talk, I have summarized the development of the early church in the Roman Empire, and the Great Schism). This year, an alert, kind women, raised her hand, thanked me for an interesting tour, and told me she was Ukrainian and Orthodox.  I asked her to which parish she belonged.  She said Pokrova.  The sign outside of that church says "Pokrova Greco Catholic Church;" ( it's also immediately next to the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church, the parish which last year hosted the OCA's 17th All-American Council).  I politely told her that was a Byzantine Rite Church of the Roman Catholic Church, and it was not Orthodox.  She kept insisting that it was an Orthodox Church.  While not arguing, we continued to go back and forth.  I finally stated her parish was under the authority of the Pope of Rome, smiled and walked away.

I am interested in your comments about this topic.  Is this a common perception among Eastern Rite Roman Catholics?  How can they think of themselves as "Orthodox," when they commemorate the Roman Pontiff during their Divine Services?  Why in the Old World, such as in Ukraine, do they fight over individual churches, if the Byzantine Rite faithful think of themselves as "Orthodox?"  What difference do they perceive between the Roman Catholic Byzantine Rite, and the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church? How do they understand the Great Schism, if they view themselves as "Orthodox?"

Your analysis of this topic and comments are welcome.
I would turn the question around.  How can you think of yourself a "Catholic" when you don't commemorate the Roman Pontiff during your Divine Services? If you can answer that, and I know you can, you have your answer.
Easy: "Catholic" was never defined as commemorating the Roman Pontiff-St. Ignatius, who provides the earliest attested use of the term, never mentions the "Roman Pontiff," even when writing to the Romans.

Orthodox, however, has always been defined as holding to the Orthodox Faith.
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
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 2,271


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2013, 08:07:13 AM »

I am interested in your comments about this topic.  Is this a common perception among Eastern Rite Roman Catholics?  How can they think of themselves as "Orthodox," when they commemorate the Roman Pontiff during their Divine Services?  Why in the Old World, such as in Ukraine, do they fight over individual churches, if the Byzantine Rite faithful think of themselves as "Orthodox?"  What difference do they perceive between the Roman Catholic Byzantine Rite, and the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church? How do they understand the Great Schism, if they view themselves as "Orthodox?"

Your analysis of this topic and comments are welcome.

It is more historical than theological, particularly among those who are of the UGCC and perhaps to some extent of the Byzantine Catholic Church (from the Eparchy of Mukachevo).  Both of those churches were part of the Church of Kyivan Rus', which was always subject to Constantinople until its fall.  Then, of course, Moscow gained autocephaly.  But the areas where the UGCC / BCC come from (western and south-western Ukraine) were outside the territory of the Tsardom at the time of Moscow's autocephaly.  They were under Polish rule.  I think that probably because of a combination of Polish reluctance to have the Patriarch of Moscow's influence on its territory and the realization of the Ruthenians in Poland that they were different from the Ruthenians under the Tsar (by this time, the languages were well on their way to splitting), Constantinople appointed a replacement Metropolitan of Kyiv under its own jurisdiction.  Then, by 1686, Russia had made its "deal" with the Hetmanate and succeeded in wresting the Metropolitanate away from Constantinople (traditional Ukrainian view).  In the midst of all this, the Ruthenians in Polish lands had had enough.  They wanted to preserve their rites in the Catholic-dominated land and not to become Latin Catholics.  They either knew that they couldn't be placed under the Patriarch of Moscow and/or didn't want to be.  So their hierarchs made the deal in 1596 (the Union of Brest) whereby the Church of Rus' in Polish lands would be placed under the Pope, but preserve all its rites.  In 1646 the Union of Uzhhorod did the same thing for the Eparchy of Mukachevo, now the Byzantine Catholic Church, south of the Carpathians.  Many of the people disapproved and the issue was not really resolved until almost 1700 when all the dioceses joined the Union.  (Russia continued to encroach on Polish territory, and as it claimed territory that had entered the Union, it forcibly dissolved it.  So Kyiv switched back to Orthodox, then Volyn, Kholm, etc.)

After Poland-Lithuania fell, Austria reinforced the union in its territory so that between 1785 and the early 1910s there was no Orthodox presence at all in its province of Galicia (Halychyna).

So, to put it short, these people claim that their church is the original Orthodox Church of Kyivan Rus' which fled to the Pope for protection during the Polish times, and that the Russian Metropolitanate of Kyiv was an attempt to steal it away and put it under Russian influence.  This is why they call their leader, Major Archbishop Shevchuk, a Patriarch, even though he is not officially denominated as such.  I think that many of them would be open to leaving the Union, but not if it meant that they had to be placed under the hated Russian rule.  Only if they could be autocephalous or, at least, under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which they feel was their rightful jurisdiction before the Russians stole it away from them.  The Russian Empire and later the Soviet Union are blamed for destroying Ukrainian independence through the alliance with (and later absorption of) the Cossack Hetmanate in the 17th Century, the Ems Ukase in 1876, the Holodomor, etc., etc.  In Western Ukraine today, which was under Austrian rule, they sell t-shirts that read, "Thank God I am not a Muscovite."  If there were an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church, many of these people would probably join it.  (In fact, many did when the UAOC and the Kyivan Patriarchate arose at various times.  The UAOC drew off a number of American UGCC faithful as well but the Kyivan Patriarchate not so much.)  I think there is an attitude among some of those who are more nationalistic that they are "Ukrainian Orthodox in Exile" until such time as a Ukrainian national church can be properly and securely formed.

The BCC folks (Mukachevo Eparchy) do not consider themselves Ukrainian, so they are somewhat mixed.  I don't know so much about their feelings on the matter, although some among them also resent what they feel was the forced nature of the Union of Uzhhorod in 1646.  I'd be interested to hear more about that.
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,798


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 24, 2013, 09:41:52 AM »

Yurysprudentsiya: well written. Thank you. I guess this history is the view of the few liturgically high Byzantine восточники Ukrainian Catholics (the few who celebrate their relatedness to and continuity with the Orthodox) in the Ukraine, which explains the major archbishop calling himself a patriarch (the Melkites have one so why not? I use it out of courtesy), going back to the great cardinal Josyf (Slipyj), and the HQ's move to Kiev.

Quote
So, to put it short, these people claim that their church is the original Orthodox Church of Kyivan Rus' which fled to the Pope for protection during the Polish times, and that the Russian Metropolitanate of Kyiv was an attempt to steal it away and put it under Russian influence.

Pretty much. But when you're Catholic you don't have to defend their self-latinizations.

Unlike the Anglicans, when not under Rome they kept the essentials of the faith (credal orthodoxy, unbroken apostolic succession, uninterrupted true teaching about the Eucharist), so sure, they are the continuation of the old Kievan church while the Church of England or Norway is not the medieval Catholic Church in England or Norway, even though they have all the old buildings and titles.

I appreciate that the Orthodox have a different view: being in the church = being in the Orthodox communion (being accepted by at least one church in that communion; Constantinople's not like Rome in that) or at least not being under Rome, so the Ukrainian Catholic Church might not have grace; at least it's not Orthodox. So, says Orthodoxy, the Russians restored the true church there, and a number of people were happy with that. Kiev and most of the rest of the Ukraine is as Orthodox as Russia.

Again I agree with you that moving the HQ to Kiev was needlessly provocative, going against Catholic policy of trying for corporate reunion through example and persuasion. But considering how the Russians treated the Ukrainian Catholic Church, understandable.

The Ukrainian Catholic Church under Soviet rule was heroic. Take notes on how a traditional Catholic church survived modern persecution by going underground. Nobody outside the Ukraine was sure if it still existed in the Ukraine, then in 1989 it resurfaced complete with acting metropolitan Volodymyr (Sterniuk), reporting for duty. The people in Galicia and Transcarpathia took back the parishes the Communists stole (parishes declared their allegiance).
Logged

Fabio Leite
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,449



WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 24, 2013, 09:52:48 AM »

How can anyone claim to be Catholic - kata holic, according to the whole - being according to the pope?

I give the tours of my GOAA church during our annual Grecian Festival.  In the course of the tours, I explain the symbolism behind the architecture and iconography of the church.  It ends up being a 40 minute summary of an understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  When I get to the Bishop's Throne, I explain that the throne reminds us that the church is not a worship community unto itself, but part of a diocese under a bishop, who is part of a synod or a provincial synod, which is led by a primate or first hierarch, who commemorates his fellow primates of the Holy Orthodox Churches. I then list the Holy Orthodox Churches by the Dyptics, explain autocephaly, and the unity of the One Holy Orthodox Church, through Faith, Dogma, and Holy Communion.  When the tour is completed, I ask for questions.  (Earlier in the talk, I have summarized the development of the early church in the Roman Empire, and the Great Schism). This year, an alert, kind women, raised her hand, thanked me for an interesting tour, and told me she was Ukrainian and Orthodox.  I asked her to which parish she belonged.  She said Pokrova.  The sign outside of that church says "Pokrova Greco Catholic Church;" ( it's also immediately next to the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church, the parish which last year hosted the OCA's 17th All-American Council).  I politely told her that was a Byzantine Rite Church of the Roman Catholic Church, and it was not Orthodox.  She kept insisting that it was an Orthodox Church.  While not arguing, we continued to go back and forth.  I finally stated her parish was under the authority of the Pope of Rome, smiled and walked away.

I am interested in your comments about this topic.  Is this a common perception among Eastern Rite Roman Catholics?  How can they think of themselves as "Orthodox," when they commemorate the Roman Pontiff during their Divine Services?  Why in the Old World, such as in Ukraine, do they fight over individual churches, if the Byzantine Rite faithful think of themselves as "Orthodox?"  What difference do they perceive between the Roman Catholic Byzantine Rite, and the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church? How do they understand the Great Schism, if they view themselves as "Orthodox?"

Your analysis of this topic and comments are welcome.
I would turn the question around.  How can you think of yourself a "Catholic" when you don't commemorate the Roman Pontiff during your Divine Services? If you can answer that, and I know you can, you have your answer.
Logged

Go ma minions of modesty!
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,798


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 24, 2013, 10:41:18 AM »

How can anyone claim to be Catholic - kata holic, according to the whole - being according to the pope?

I give the tours of my GOAA church during our annual Grecian Festival.  In the course of the tours, I explain the symbolism behind the architecture and iconography of the church.  It ends up being a 40 minute summary of an understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  When I get to the Bishop's Throne, I explain that the throne reminds us that the church is not a worship community unto itself, but part of a diocese under a bishop, who is part of a synod or a provincial synod, which is led by a primate or first hierarch, who commemorates his fellow primates of the Holy Orthodox Churches. I then list the Holy Orthodox Churches by the Dyptics, explain autocephaly, and the unity of the One Holy Orthodox Church, through Faith, Dogma, and Holy Communion.  When the tour is completed, I ask for questions.  (Earlier in the talk, I have summarized the development of the early church in the Roman Empire, and the Great Schism). This year, an alert, kind women, raised her hand, thanked me for an interesting tour, and told me she was Ukrainian and Orthodox.  I asked her to which parish she belonged.  She said Pokrova.  The sign outside of that church says "Pokrova Greco Catholic Church;" ( it's also immediately next to the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church, the parish which last year hosted the OCA's 17th All-American Council).  I politely told her that was a Byzantine Rite Church of the Roman Catholic Church, and it was not Orthodox.  She kept insisting that it was an Orthodox Church.  While not arguing, we continued to go back and forth.  I finally stated her parish was under the authority of the Pope of Rome, smiled and walked away.

I am interested in your comments about this topic.  Is this a common perception among Eastern Rite Roman Catholics?  How can they think of themselves as "Orthodox," when they commemorate the Roman Pontiff during their Divine Services?  Why in the Old World, such as in Ukraine, do they fight over individual churches, if the Byzantine Rite faithful think of themselves as "Orthodox?"  What difference do they perceive between the Roman Catholic Byzantine Rite, and the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church? How do they understand the Great Schism, if they view themselves as "Orthodox?"

Your analysis of this topic and comments are welcome.
I would turn the question around.  How can you think of yourself a "Catholic" when you don't commemorate the Roman Pontiff during your Divine Services? If you can answer that, and I know you can, you have your answer.

Trinity, with Jesus as true God and true man in the hypostatic union? Check.
True bishops? Check.
The Eucharist as sacrifice and sacrament with Christ's complete presence? Check.
Infallible, irreformable (irrevocable) doctrine (not up for a mainline-style vote)? Check.
Same teachings on contraception, abortion, and homosexuality as 50, 100, 1,000, and 2,000 years ago? Check.

Checks out. The Pope's Catholic.
Logged

Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,956



« Reply #15 on: July 24, 2013, 10:46:50 AM »

contraception, abortion, and homosexuality

The Holy Trinity of contemporary Christianity. Regardless of denomination.
Logged

theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #16 on: July 24, 2013, 10:47:02 AM »

Ok; never thought of it that way.  Under that logic, though, Roman Catholics of the Latin Rite, can claim to be Orthodox, too; correct?

They probably wouldn't, except in a small "o" way, but I suppose they could.  The word "Orthodox" still occurs in the Latin text of their oldest anaphora, although it's not rendered in English as "Orthodox" or "orthodox". 

We are "orthodox" in the same way that you are "catholic".  Cool
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,798


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 24, 2013, 11:02:16 AM »

contraception, abortion, and homosexuality

The Holy Trinity of contemporary Christianity. Regardless of denomination.

'I'm too cool to argue those' means 'I'm really on board with the world on those'. Even from those in Orthodox garb.
Logged

The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,798


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 24, 2013, 11:03:53 AM »

Ok; never thought of it that way.  Under that logic, though, Roman Catholics of the Latin Rite, can claim to be Orthodox, too; correct?

They probably wouldn't, except in a small "o" way, but I suppose they could.  The word "Orthodox" still occurs in the Latin text of their oldest anaphora, although it's not rendered in English as "Orthodox" or "orthodox". 

We are "orthodox" in the same way that you are "catholic".  Cool

Indeed.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #19 on: July 24, 2013, 11:04:15 AM »

How can anyone claim to be Catholic - kata holic, according to the whole - being according to the pope?

I give the tours of my GOAA church during our annual Grecian Festival.  In the course of the tours, I explain the symbolism behind the architecture and iconography of the church.  It ends up being a 40 minute summary of an understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  When I get to the Bishop's Throne, I explain that the throne reminds us that the church is not a worship community unto itself, but part of a diocese under a bishop, who is part of a synod or a provincial synod, which is led by a primate or first hierarch, who commemorates his fellow primates of the Holy Orthodox Churches. I then list the Holy Orthodox Churches by the Dyptics, explain autocephaly, and the unity of the One Holy Orthodox Church, through Faith, Dogma, and Holy Communion.  When the tour is completed, I ask for questions.  (Earlier in the talk, I have summarized the development of the early church in the Roman Empire, and the Great Schism). This year, an alert, kind women, raised her hand, thanked me for an interesting tour, and told me she was Ukrainian and Orthodox.  I asked her to which parish she belonged.  She said Pokrova.  The sign outside of that church says "Pokrova Greco Catholic Church;" ( it's also immediately next to the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church, the parish which last year hosted the OCA's 17th All-American Council).  I politely told her that was a Byzantine Rite Church of the Roman Catholic Church, and it was not Orthodox.  She kept insisting that it was an Orthodox Church.  While not arguing, we continued to go back and forth.  I finally stated her parish was under the authority of the Pope of Rome, smiled and walked away.

I am interested in your comments about this topic.  Is this a common perception among Eastern Rite Roman Catholics?  How can they think of themselves as "Orthodox," when they commemorate the Roman Pontiff during their Divine Services?  Why in the Old World, such as in Ukraine, do they fight over individual churches, if the Byzantine Rite faithful think of themselves as "Orthodox?"  What difference do they perceive between the Roman Catholic Byzantine Rite, and the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church? How do they understand the Great Schism, if they view themselves as "Orthodox?"

Your analysis of this topic and comments are welcome.
I would turn the question around.  How can you think of yourself a "Catholic" when you don't commemorate the Roman Pontiff during your Divine Services? If you can answer that, and I know you can, you have your answer.
Because we have the whole faith, including the Papacy which was established by Christ. Smiley
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,798


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 24, 2013, 11:10:44 AM »

Because we have the whole faith, including the Papacy which was established by Christ. Smiley

'Because I said so.'
'Prove it!'
Back to here:

Quote
Trinity, with Jesus as true God and true man in the hypostatic union? Check.
True bishops? Check.
The Eucharist as sacrifice and sacrament with Christ's complete presence? Check.
Infallible, irreformable (irrevocable) doctrine (not up for a mainline-style vote)? Check.
Same teachings on contraception, abortion, and homosexuality as 50, 100, 1,000, and 2,000 years ago? Check.

Checks out. The Pope's Catholic.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #21 on: July 24, 2013, 11:19:53 AM »

Yurysprudentsiya: well written. Thank you. I guess this history is the view of the few liturgically high Byzantine восточники Ukrainian Catholics (the few who celebrate their relatedness to and continuity with the Orthodox) in the Ukraine, which explains the major archbishop calling himself a patriarch (the Melkites have one so why not? I use it out of courtesy), going back to the great cardinal Josyf (Slipyj), and the HQ's move to Kiev.

Quote
So, to put it short, these people claim that their church is the original Orthodox Church of Kyivan Rus' which fled to the Pope for protection during the Polish times, and that the Russian Metropolitanate of Kyiv was an attempt to steal it away and put it under Russian influence.

Pretty much. But when you're Catholic you don't have to defend their self-latinizations.

Unlike the Anglicans, when not under Rome they kept the essentials of the faith (credal orthodoxy, unbroken apostolic succession, uninterrupted true teaching about the Eucharist), so sure, they are the continuation of the old Kievan church while the Church of England or Norway is not the medieval Catholic Church in England or Norway, even though they have all the old buildings and titles.

I appreciate that the Orthodox have a different view: being in the church = being in the Orthodox communion (being accepted by at least one church in that communion; Constantinople's not like Rome in that) or at least not being under Rome, so the Ukrainian Catholic Church might not have grace; at least it's not Orthodox. So, says Orthodoxy, the Russians restored the true church there, and a number of people were happy with that. Kiev and most of the rest of the Ukraine is as Orthodox as Russia.

Again I agree with you that moving the HQ to Kiev was needlessly provocative, going against Catholic policy of trying for corporate reunion through example and persuasion. But considering how the Russians treated the Ukrainian Catholic Church, understandable.

The Ukrainian Catholic Church under Soviet rule was heroic. Take notes on how a traditional Catholic church survived modern persecution by going underground. Nobody outside the Ukraine was sure if it still existed in the Ukraine, then in 1989 it resurfaced complete with acting metropolitan Volodymyr (Sterniuk), reporting for duty. The people in Galicia and Transcarpathia took back the parishes the Communists stole (parishes declared their allegiance).
and then some, stealing Churches the communists built.

But, giving the devil his due and all that, the UGCC did prove more than a match for the Communists, perhaps more so than the other churches, even perhaps the Orthodox Church.

The move to Kiev wasn't needlessly provocative.  Just a tipping of the cards, serving notice.

Ukraine, canonical problems aside, is more Orthodox than Russia.  And it was Orthodox before Russia got there.
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
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,956



« Reply #22 on: July 24, 2013, 11:23:15 AM »

contraception, abortion, and homosexuality

The Holy Trinity of contemporary Christianity. Regardless of denomination.

'I'm too cool to argue those' means 'I'm really on board with the world on those'. Even from those in Orthodox garb.

No, not really since I believe that all those are sinful regardless of situation.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2013, 11:24:09 AM »

How can anyone claim to be Catholic - kata holic, according to the whole - being according to the pope?

I give the tours of my GOAA church during our annual Grecian Festival.  In the course of the tours, I explain the symbolism behind the architecture and iconography of the church.  It ends up being a 40 minute summary of an understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  When I get to the Bishop's Throne, I explain that the throne reminds us that the church is not a worship community unto itself, but part of a diocese under a bishop, who is part of a synod or a provincial synod, which is led by a primate or first hierarch, who commemorates his fellow primates of the Holy Orthodox Churches. I then list the Holy Orthodox Churches by the Dyptics, explain autocephaly, and the unity of the One Holy Orthodox Church, through Faith, Dogma, and Holy Communion.  When the tour is completed, I ask for questions.  (Earlier in the talk, I have summarized the development of the early church in the Roman Empire, and the Great Schism). This year, an alert, kind women, raised her hand, thanked me for an interesting tour, and told me she was Ukrainian and Orthodox.  I asked her to which parish she belonged.  She said Pokrova.  The sign outside of that church says "Pokrova Greco Catholic Church;" ( it's also immediately next to the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church, the parish which last year hosted the OCA's 17th All-American Council).  I politely told her that was a Byzantine Rite Church of the Roman Catholic Church, and it was not Orthodox.  She kept insisting that it was an Orthodox Church.  While not arguing, we continued to go back and forth.  I finally stated her parish was under the authority of the Pope of Rome, smiled and walked away.

I am interested in your comments about this topic.  Is this a common perception among Eastern Rite Roman Catholics?  How can they think of themselves as "Orthodox," when they commemorate the Roman Pontiff during their Divine Services?  Why in the Old World, such as in Ukraine, do they fight over individual churches, if the Byzantine Rite faithful think of themselves as "Orthodox?"  What difference do they perceive between the Roman Catholic Byzantine Rite, and the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church? How do they understand the Great Schism, if they view themselves as "Orthodox?"

Your analysis of this topic and comments are welcome.
I would turn the question around.  How can you think of yourself a "Catholic" when you don't commemorate the Roman Pontiff during your Divine Services? If you can answer that, and I know you can, you have your answer.

Trinity, with Jesus as true God and true man in the hypostatic union? Check.
True bishops? Check.
The Eucharist as sacrifice and sacrament with Christ's complete presence? Check.
Infallible, irreformable (irrevocable) doctrine (not up for a mainline-style vote)? Check.
Same teachings on contraception, abortion, and homosexuality as 50, 100, 1,000, and 2,000 years ago? Check.
Try finding HV's teaching on the rhythm method 50 years ago, let alone 100, 1,000 or 2,000 years ago.

As to the rest:filioque, St. Cyprian, development of doctrine...
Logged

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

Posts: 21,477


« Reply #24 on: July 24, 2013, 11:34:16 AM »

they sell t-shirts that read, "Thank God I am not a Muscovite."  

I have one.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #25 on: July 24, 2013, 11:44:38 AM »

How can anyone claim to be Catholic - kata holic, according to the whole - being according to the pope?

I give the tours of my GOAA church during our annual Grecian Festival.  In the course of the tours, I explain the symbolism behind the architecture and iconography of the church.  It ends up being a 40 minute summary of an understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  When I get to the Bishop's Throne, I explain that the throne reminds us that the church is not a worship community unto itself, but part of a diocese under a bishop, who is part of a synod or a provincial synod, which is led by a primate or first hierarch, who commemorates his fellow primates of the Holy Orthodox Churches. I then list the Holy Orthodox Churches by the Dyptics, explain autocephaly, and the unity of the One Holy Orthodox Church, through Faith, Dogma, and Holy Communion.  When the tour is completed, I ask for questions.  (Earlier in the talk, I have summarized the development of the early church in the Roman Empire, and the Great Schism). This year, an alert, kind women, raised her hand, thanked me for an interesting tour, and told me she was Ukrainian and Orthodox.  I asked her to which parish she belonged.  She said Pokrova.  The sign outside of that church says "Pokrova Greco Catholic Church;" ( it's also immediately next to the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church, the parish which last year hosted the OCA's 17th All-American Council).  I politely told her that was a Byzantine Rite Church of the Roman Catholic Church, and it was not Orthodox.  She kept insisting that it was an Orthodox Church.  While not arguing, we continued to go back and forth.  I finally stated her parish was under the authority of the Pope of Rome, smiled and walked away.

I am interested in your comments about this topic.  Is this a common perception among Eastern Rite Roman Catholics?  How can they think of themselves as "Orthodox," when they commemorate the Roman Pontiff during their Divine Services?  Why in the Old World, such as in Ukraine, do they fight over individual churches, if the Byzantine Rite faithful think of themselves as "Orthodox?"  What difference do they perceive between the Roman Catholic Byzantine Rite, and the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church? How do they understand the Great Schism, if they view themselves as "Orthodox?"

Your analysis of this topic and comments are welcome.
I would turn the question around.  How can you think of yourself a "Catholic" when you don't commemorate the Roman Pontiff during your Divine Services? If you can answer that, and I know you can, you have your answer.

Trinity, with Jesus as true God and true man in the hypostatic union? Check.
True bishops? Check.
The Eucharist as sacrifice and sacrament with Christ's complete presence? Check.
Infallible, irreformable (irrevocable) doctrine (not up for a mainline-style vote)? Check.
Same teachings on contraception, abortion, and homosexuality as 50, 100, 1,000, and 2,000 years ago? Check.
Try finding HV's teaching on the rhythm method 50 years ago, let alone 100, 1,000 or 2,000 years ago.


How could we look for the rhythm method that was not well developed until the time of the 20th century? hmmmmm? But what I can find in the Fathers is a condemnation of birth contro.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #26 on: July 24, 2013, 03:41:00 PM »

You summarize well the UGCC revisionism, shared by some/many supporters of Ukrainian autocephaly over canonicity.  There are real facts in that, just as a counterfeit bill has to look like the real thing to work.

I'll just interject where the story is diverted and bent (not by you personally, but by the narrative supported by the mythology of Halecki and Bp. Gudziak, and like minded Ukrainian phyletists):
It is more historical than theological, particularly among those who are of the UGCC and perhaps to some extent of the Byzantine Catholic Church (from the Eparchy of Mukachevo).  Both of those churches were part of the Church of Kyivan Rus', which was always subject to Constantinople until its fall.
 
Constantinople fell in 1454, but the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus', Met. St. Jonah, was consecrated autocephalously in 1448.  The Metropolitanate had been autonomous at least since 1354-89 (it took a couple of Tomes), partly in response to the attempt of the Grand Duke of Lithuania using its possession of the remains of Kiev itself in promoting a separate metropolitanate from the Metropolitan of Kiev, then resident in Moscow.  At the same time the see was translated from Kiev to Vladimir-on-the-Klyazma, and the choice of Metropolitan vested in the Grand Duchy of Moscow.
Then, of course, Moscow gained autocephaly.  But the areas where the UGCC / BCC come from (western and south-western Ukraine) were outside the territory of the Tsardom at the time of Moscow's autocephaly.
The Tomes issued by Constantinople around 1354 and finally confirmed in 1389 subjected all dioceses outside of the Grand Duchy (it was not a Tsardom until almost a century after Moscow's autocephaly) of Moscow to the Metropolitan of Kiev resident there.
They were under Polish rule.
In 1451 King Casimir of Poland issued a diploma recognizing Met. St. Jonah's authority over his suffragans in Lithunia, including Kiev-he only refused to let the bishops of Halych and Peremyshl' (where his predecessors, under express instructions of their supreme pontiff, had driven out the Orthodox bishops and installed the Vatican's Latin bishops) recognize the Metropolitan's authority-ironically, or perhaps apropos, their successors would be the bishops who refused to sign the "Union of Brest" and who formed the core in which the Ukrainian Orthodox Church continued.  The diploma explicitly recognized his right to the Metropolitan's residence and Cathedral in Kiev and in Vilnius (where the future Metropolitans of the "Union of Brest" actually resided).
I think that probably because of a combination of Polish reluctance to have the Patriarch of Moscow's influence on its territory and the realization of the Ruthenians in Poland that they were different from the Ruthenians under the Tsar (by this time, the languages were well on their way to splitting), Constantinople appointed a replacement Metropolitan of Kyiv under its own jurisdiction.
Not quite.
The deposed EP and then Latin "Patriarch of Constantinople" in Old Rome, Gregory Mammas, at the direction of the deposed Metropolitan of Kiev, Isidore the Apostate, also in Old Rome, ordained Gregory Bolgarian/the Bulgarian as Metropolitan of Kiev and Lower/Little Russia (Russia Inferior).  Moscow and Upper/Greater Russia (Russia Superior) was supposed to stay under Isidore's jurisdiction, although he had been deposed by its Holy Synod in 1441.  King Casimir then, on instructions from his supreme pontiffs (Calixtus and Pius) and "Pat." Gregory and "Met." Isidore, withdrew his recognition of Met. Jonah and forced the bishops under his control to do the same. The bishop of Briansk, Chernihiv and Smolensk, in Lithuanian territory at the time, refused and fled to Moscow.  Many Lithuanian nobles did the same (e.g. the family of Bishop Alexander Galitzin of Toledo and the Bulgarian Diocese of the OCA and his Academy Award Oscar winning uncle Alexander Golitzen). Half a century latter Moscow would set the precedent of gathering Briansk, Chernihiv and Smolensk into Muscovy.

Met. St. Jonah sent an encyclical, confirmed by a Holy Synod of the Metropolitinate, to the bishops in the territory of the King of Poland, the Grand Duke of Lithuania and their Orthodox nobles, denouncing Gregory, Florence and Constantinople's involvement in both.  When Met. St. Jonah fell asleep in 1461, his successor had the bishops swear on the relics of Met. St. Peter the Galician to pledge their allegiance to him, and to denounce "Gregory, excommunicated from the Catholic Church, who calls himself 'Metropolitan of Kiev'."  For his part, Met. Gregory, after the death of his mentor Isidore, went on to try to be accepted in Moscow, having first, in 1470, renounced those who ordained him and confessed to the EP in Constantinople.  EP Dionysius I, trying to reassert jurisdiction over Kiev and All Rus', acknowledged him with the instructions to all the Rus' wherever (including Moscow) of accepting bishops only recognized by Constantinople.  When Met. Gregory died in 1473, Old Rome had given up on the Union of Florence, New Rome appointed a Metropolitan Spyridon of Kiev for Moscow and Vilnius who was received and accepted by neither-instead being imprisoned a fraud.  In reaction the Metropolitan of All Rus' in Moscow and his Holy Synod had all bishops swear on consecration not to receive any Metropolitans from Constantinople.  Vilnius elected a successor Misael, who carried the title "Metropolitan-elect" as neither Old Rome, New Rome nor Moscow confirmed him.  When he died in 1480, the situation still remained with Moscow, Constantinople and Vilnius all claiming Kiev when the Tartars sacked the city in 1481-4, sending the sacred objects among the booty to the Metropolitan in Moscow.  Kiev remained a ruin until the Cossaks and the illegal (but canonical) Ukrainian Orthodox Metropolitinate of Kiev, and especially after its legalization in 1631, rebuilt it.  The canonical status remained in contention until 1589-93, when Moscow released it to Constantinople in return for official and formal recognition of Moscow's autocephaly and elevation into a Patriarchate.

Then, by 1686, Russia had made its "deal" with the Hetmanate and succeeded in wresting the Metropolitanate away from Constantinople (traditional Ukrainian view).
True, but skipped over a few things.

The Orthodox opposition in UKraine, Poland and Lithuania had survived the debacle of 1596, and with the help of the Metropolitan of Moldavia and the Patriarch of Jerusalem, supported by the Cossacks in Kiev itself, had appealed to Moscow to invade and reunite the Metropolitinate to the Patriarchate, but Moscow was in no position to do so.  By the time Moscow could, Met. St. Movila had consolidated the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.  The Pereslav Articles, published by the Kievan Cave Monastery in 1559-the Czar's negotiator, Prince Alexei Trubetskoy, one of the many scions in the Tsardom who were then avenging their ancestors being forced to choose between conversion or Orthodoxy and who fled to Moscow, had to acknowledge the autonomy of the Kiev Metropolitinate under Constantinople, as it had been since 1589. When Russia forced Poland to sign the Treaty of Eternal Peace in 1686 (negotiated by Basil Galitzin, another one of the scions and a relative of the above mentioned Alexanders), it contained a clause making Poland promise the Orthodox their rights denied them and made Russia the guarantor of that.  Poland, however, continued to persecute the Orthodox until the Eve of the Second Partition. In view of this, and a decade of a vacancy of the Metropolitinate in the Hetmanate-with almost three decades of a locum tenens in Kiev appointed from Moscow, in 1686 the Metropolitinate of Kiev was translated back to the Patriarchate of Moscow, where it has remained (but hopefully soon will no longer).

In the midst of all this, the Ruthenians in Polish lands had had enough.  They wanted to preserve their rites in the Catholic-dominated land and not to become Latin Catholics.  They either knew that they couldn't be placed under the Patriarch of Moscow and/or didn't want to be.  So their hierarchs made the deal in 1596 (the Union of Brest) whereby the Church of Rus' in Polish lands would be placed under the Pope, but preserve all its rites.  In 1646 the Union of Uzhhorod did the same thing for the Eparchy of Mukachevo, now the Byzantine Catholic Church, south of the Carpathians.  Many of the people disapproved and the issue was not really resolved until almost 1700 when all the dioceses joined the Union.  (Russia continued to encroach on Polish territory, and as it claimed territory that had entered the Union, it forcibly dissolved it.  So Kyiv switched back to Orthodox, then Volyn, Kholm, etc.)
Ukraine isn't Polish territory.  As pointed out above, it remained Orthodox, in particular Kiev which was only nominally part of the "Union," and that only for 24 years.
After Poland-Lithuania fell, Austria reinforced the union in its territory so that between 1785 and the early 1910s there was no Orthodox presence at all in its province of Galicia (Halychyna).
Actually, the Emperor Joseph, touring his new lands, was surprised by a delegation of the resident Orthodox petitioning for a diploma for a Church.  The direct result is St. George Cathedral in L'viv, at present serving as the Cathedral of the Ukrainian Orthodox bishop of L'viv since his Cathedral, the old St. George, was seized by the UGCC-old St. George's bishops refusing for a century to sign the "Union."  There was an increasing problem in Galicia of people returning to Orthodoxy, many not staying there going across the border to Ukraine or just to the Crown Land of Bukowina, where they eventually made the majority of the autocephalous Metropolitinate of Czernowitz.  The Czar recruited most of the clergy involved in bringing the Cholm eparchy back from Galicia.

So, to put it short, these people claim that their church is the original Orthodox Church of Kyivan Rus' which fled to the Pope for protection during the Polish times, and that the Russian Metropolitanate of Kyiv was an attempt to steal it away and put it under Russian influence.
The creation of the separate Metropolitinate of Kiev, as shown above, had no Russian involvement until 1556, or really, until 1659, when it appointed the first locum tenens in Kiev.

This is why they call their leader, Major Archbishop Shevchuk, a Patriarch, even though he is not officially denominated as such.  I think that many of them would be open to leaving the Union, but not if it meant that they had to be placed under the hated Russian rule.  Only if they could be autocephalous or, at least, under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which they feel was their rightful jurisdiction before the Russians stole it away from them.  The Russian Empire and later the Soviet Union are blamed for destroying Ukrainian independence through the alliance with (and later absorption of) the Cossack Hetmanate in the 17th Century, the Ems Ukase in 1876, the Holodomor, etc., etc.  In Western Ukraine today, which was under Austrian rule, they sell t-shirts that read, "Thank God I am not a Muscovite."  If there were an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church, many of these people would probably join it.  (In fact, many did when the UAOC and the Kyivan Patriarchate arose at various times.  The UAOC drew off a number of American UGCC faithful as well but the Kyivan Patriarchate not so much.)  I think there is an attitude among some of those who are more nationalistic that they are "Ukrainian Orthodox in Exile" until such time as a Ukrainian national church can be properly and securely formed.
That accurately sums up their propaganda.  The truth lies elsewhere, as shown above.
The BCC folks (Mukachevo Eparchy) do not consider themselves Ukrainian, so they are somewhat mixed.  I don't know so much about their feelings on the matter, although some among them also resent what they feel was the forced nature of the Union of Uzhhorod in 1646.  I'd be interested to hear more about that.
I've posted a bit just recently on that on another thread.  Lord willing, if needed, I'll post more later.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2013, 03:45:19 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #27 on: July 24, 2013, 03:44:19 PM »

How can anyone claim to be Catholic - kata holic, according to the whole - being according to the pope?

I give the tours of my GOAA church during our annual Grecian Festival.  In the course of the tours, I explain the symbolism behind the architecture and iconography of the church.  It ends up being a 40 minute summary of an understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  When I get to the Bishop's Throne, I explain that the throne reminds us that the church is not a worship community unto itself, but part of a diocese under a bishop, who is part of a synod or a provincial synod, which is led by a primate or first hierarch, who commemorates his fellow primates of the Holy Orthodox Churches. I then list the Holy Orthodox Churches by the Dyptics, explain autocephaly, and the unity of the One Holy Orthodox Church, through Faith, Dogma, and Holy Communion.  When the tour is completed, I ask for questions.  (Earlier in the talk, I have summarized the development of the early church in the Roman Empire, and the Great Schism). This year, an alert, kind women, raised her hand, thanked me for an interesting tour, and told me she was Ukrainian and Orthodox.  I asked her to which parish she belonged.  She said Pokrova.  The sign outside of that church says "Pokrova Greco Catholic Church;" ( it's also immediately next to the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church, the parish which last year hosted the OCA's 17th All-American Council).  I politely told her that was a Byzantine Rite Church of the Roman Catholic Church, and it was not Orthodox.  She kept insisting that it was an Orthodox Church.  While not arguing, we continued to go back and forth.  I finally stated her parish was under the authority of the Pope of Rome, smiled and walked away.

I am interested in your comments about this topic.  Is this a common perception among Eastern Rite Roman Catholics?  How can they think of themselves as "Orthodox," when they commemorate the Roman Pontiff during their Divine Services?  Why in the Old World, such as in Ukraine, do they fight over individual churches, if the Byzantine Rite faithful think of themselves as "Orthodox?"  What difference do they perceive between the Roman Catholic Byzantine Rite, and the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church? How do they understand the Great Schism, if they view themselves as "Orthodox?"

Your analysis of this topic and comments are welcome.
I would turn the question around.  How can you think of yourself a "Catholic" when you don't commemorate the Roman Pontiff during your Divine Services? If you can answer that, and I know you can, you have your answer.

Trinity, with Jesus as true God and true man in the hypostatic union? Check.
True bishops? Check.
The Eucharist as sacrifice and sacrament with Christ's complete presence? Check.
Infallible, irreformable (irrevocable) doctrine (not up for a mainline-style vote)? Check.
Same teachings on contraception, abortion, and homosexuality as 50, 100, 1,000, and 2,000 years ago? Check.
Try finding HV's teaching on the rhythm method 50 years ago, let alone 100, 1,000 or 2,000 years ago.


How could we look for the rhythm method that was not well developed until the time of the 20th century? hmmmmm? But what I can find in the Fathers is a condemnation of birth contro.
What you can find in the Fathers is a condemnation of the rhythm method, well developed or not(St. Augustine for one, who practiced it while a Manichaean), an irony pointed out by Noonan.  And just that.
Not the same as condemning abortion, which they all, and we all, do.
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
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 2,271


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #28 on: July 25, 2013, 08:58:56 AM »

Pleased to make your acquaintance.  Thanks for this spirited discussion and lots of good information, the detail of some of which is new to me.  Let's go piece by piece.  This is the wonder of these boards, that information can be shared in such a way.  I am always thrilled to learn something new!


Constantinople fell in 1454, but the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus', Met. St. Jonah, was consecrated autocephalously in 1448.  The Metropolitanate had been autonomous at least since 1354-89 (it took a couple of Tomes), partly in response to the attempt of the Grand Duke of Lithuania using its possession of the remains of Kiev itself in promoting a separate metropolitanate from the Metropolitan of Kiev, then resident in Moscow.  At the same time the see was translated from Kiev to Vladimir-on-the-Klyazma, and the choice of Metropolitan vested in the Grand Duchy of Moscow.
The Tomes issued by Constantinople around 1354 and finally confirmed in 1389 subjected all dioceses outside of the Grand Duchy (it was not a Tsardom until almost a century after Moscow's autocephaly) of Moscow to the Metropolitan of Kiev resident there.

Quite right.  The Tsardom was not established until the time of Ivan Grozny in the 16th century.  It was easier to refer to it as such, but of course, you are correct.  After the sack of Kyiv in 1240, as you point out, the Metropolitanate was moved first to Vladimir in 1299 and then to Moscow in 1325, although it retained the title, "Metropolitan of Kyiv."

In 1451 King Casimir of Poland issued a diploma recognizing Met. St. Jonah's authority over his suffragans in Lithunia, including Kiev-he only refused to let the bishops of Halych and Peremyshl' (where his predecessors, under express instructions of their supreme pontiff, had driven out the Orthodox bishops and installed the Vatican's Latin bishops) recognize the Metropolitan's authority-ironically, or perhaps apropos, their successors would be the bishops who refused to sign the "Union of Brest" and who formed the core in which the Ukrainian Orthodox Church continued.  The diploma explicitly recognized his right to the Metropolitan's residence and Cathedral in Kiev and in Vilnius (where the future Metropolitans of the "Union of Brest" actually resided).

This is very interesting.  I was not aware that the King of Poland recognized the authority of Moscow over Kyiv at that time.  Do you know why he would do this?  It would seem that Poland's control over these border regions must have been quite attenuated at that time.

The deposed EP and then Latin "Patriarch of Constantinople" in Old Rome, Gregory Mammas, at the direction of the deposed Metropolitan of Kiev, Isidore the Apostate, also in Old Rome, ordained Gregory Bolgarian/the Bulgarian as Metropolitan of Kiev and Lower/Little Russia (Russia Inferior).  Moscow and Upper/Greater Russia (Russia Superior) was supposed to stay under Isidore's jurisdiction, although he had been deposed by its Holy Synod in 1441.  King Casimir then, on instructions from his supreme pontiffs (Calixtus and Pius) and "Pat." Gregory and "Met." Isidore, withdrew his recognition of Met. Jonah and forced the bishops under his control to do the same. The bishop of Briansk, Chernihiv and Smolensk, in Lithuanian territory at the time, refused and fled to Moscow.  Many Lithuanian nobles did the same (e.g. the family of Bishop Alexander Galitzin of Toledo and the Bulgarian Diocese of the OCA and his Academy Award Oscar winning uncle Alexander Golitzen). Half a century latter Moscow would set the precedent of gathering Briansk, Chernihiv and Smolensk into Muscovy.

Very interesting.  This information is new to me.  It is very telling that even at this date there was a distinction made between the two Russias.  Classical Russia, over which the Tsar had dominion, was actually made up of at least four Russias, as indicated on old maps:  Great Russia (Muscovy), Little Russia (Central Ukraine), White Russia (Belarus), and New Russia (southern Ukraine - the Odessa region, which was not added to the Russian Empire until 1794, and which had been an Ottoman province with Greek settlement before that time.  It has a very different flavor from the rest.)

Met. St. Jonah sent an encyclical, confirmed by a Holy Synod of the Metropolitinate, to the bishops in the territory of the King of Poland, the Grand Duke of Lithuania and their Orthodox nobles, denouncing Gregory, Florence and Constantinople's involvement in both.  When Met. St. Jonah fell asleep in 1461, his successor had the bishops swear on the relics of Met. St. Peter the Galician to pledge their allegiance to him, and to denounce "Gregory, excommunicated from the Catholic Church, who calls himself 'Metropolitan of Kiev'."  For his part, Met. Gregory, after the death of his mentor Isidore, went on to try to be accepted in Moscow, having first, in 1470, renounced those who ordained him and confessed to the EP in Constantinople.  EP Dionysius I, trying to reassert jurisdiction over Kiev and All Rus', acknowledged him with the instructions to all the Rus' wherever (including Moscow) of accepting bishops only recognized by Constantinople.  When Met. Gregory died in 1473, Old Rome had given up on the Union of Florence, New Rome appointed a Metropolitan Spyridon of Kiev for Moscow and Vilnius who was received and accepted by neither-instead being imprisoned a fraud.  In reaction the Metropolitan of All Rus' in Moscow and his Holy Synod had all bishops swear on consecration not to receive any Metropolitans from Constantinople.  Vilnius elected a successor Misael, who carried the title "Metropolitan-elect" as neither Old Rome, New Rome nor Moscow confirmed him.  When he died in 1480, the situation still remained with Moscow, Constantinople and Vilnius all claiming Kiev when the Tartars sacked the city in 1481-4, sending the sacred objects among the booty to the Metropolitan in Moscow.  Kiev remained a ruin until the Cossaks and the illegal (but canonical) Ukrainian Orthodox Metropolitinate of Kiev, and especially after its legalization in 1631, rebuilt it.  The canonical status remained in contention until 1589-93, when Moscow released it to Constantinople in return for official and formal recognition of Moscow's autocephaly and elevation into a Patriarchate.

Very interesting history indeed.  Can you recommend a book which treats on this era in detail?  I'd like to learn more.

The Orthodox opposition in UKraine, Poland and Lithuania had survived the debacle of 1596, and with the help of the Metropolitan of Moldavia and the Patriarch of Jerusalem, supported by the Cossacks in Kiev itself, had appealed to Moscow to invade and reunite the Metropolitinate to the Patriarchate, but Moscow was in no position to do so.  By the time Moscow could, Met. St. Movila had consolidated the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.  The Pereslav Articles, published by the Kievan Cave Monastery in 1559-the Czar's negotiator, Prince Alexei Trubetskoy, one of the many scions in the Tsardom who were then avenging their ancestors being forced to choose between conversion or Orthodoxy and who fled to Moscow, had to acknowledge the autonomy of the Kiev Metropolitinate under Constantinople, as it had been since 1589. When Russia forced Poland to sign the Treaty of Eternal Peace in 1686 (negotiated by Basil Galitzin, another one of the scions and a relative of the above mentioned Alexanders), it contained a clause making Poland promise the Orthodox their rights denied them and made Russia the guarantor of that.

Everyone involved should have known that this was a joke.  Poland had no desire to have Orthodox within its borders looking to Moscow for protection.  There is an excellent book called the "Western Front of the Eastern Church" which treats on these times.

 Poland, however, continued to persecute the Orthodox until the Eve of the Second Partition. In view of this, and a decade of a vacancy of the Metropolitinate in the Hetmanate-with almost three decades of a locum tenens in Kiev appointed from Moscow, in 1686 the Metropolitinate of Kiev was translated back to the Patriarchate of Moscow, where it has remained (but hopefully soon will no longer).

One could argue that this translation was effective only with respect to those dioceses which remained subject to the Patriarchate of Constantinople -- the westernmost dioceses of Ukraine, firmly under Polish control, had transferred their allegiance to the Pope by this time.  The last two to switch over were Peremyshl (1692) and L'viv (1700).  Peremyshl, in fact, had had both an Orthodox bishop (headquartered in Sanok) and a Greek Catholic bishop (headquartered in Przemysl) since 1610.

Ukraine isn't Polish territory.  As pointed out above, it remained Orthodox, in particular Kiev which was only nominally part of the "Union," and that only for 24 years.

Almost half of what is now Ukraine was ruled as such in various time segments from the 1340s until the 1770s, and again a smaller portion from the 1910s to the 1940s -- I'd say they have as good a claim to influencing its cultural history as the Russians do to the eastern half.  While what you speak of the early recovery of Orthodoxy by the Metropolitan of Kyiv is correct, there remained a strong Greek Catholic presence in Kievs'ka Guberniya, including organized parishes, until 1768.  I have found lists of Greek Catholics who were forced to convert to Orthodoxy in that year, now kept in the Central State Historical Archives of Ukraine.

To be honest, I don't think the people in the villages (leaving apart the church hierarchy and those in leadership positions) were aware or cared a great deal.  They considered themselves Ruthenians who worshipped according to their own rite.  They were simply "nash."  At the time of the Union, some who did inquire about such things were even told that the Pope had become Orthodox.  Indeed, there was so little realization of what had happened that Orthodox service books continued to be used, with handwritten alterations, for over a century, and there had to be decrees made to clearly proclaim the Pope when the hierarchs were commemorated.  It wasn't until the Synod of Zamosc in 1720 that this emphasis really got organized.  Even then, most people still considered themselves of an unchanged faith.  That is why so many immigrants were surprised when they came to America and started learning about what had happened.

Actually, the Emperor Joseph, touring his new lands, was surprised by a delegation of the resident Orthodox petitioning for a diploma for a Church.  The direct result is St. George Cathedral in L'viv, at present serving as the Cathedral of the Ukrainian Orthodox bishop of L'viv since his Cathedral, the old St. George, was seized by the UGCC-old St. George's bishops refusing for a century to sign the "Union."  

Here, you've lost me.  The present St. George's Cathedral was built in the 1740s, well before Emperor Joseph came to power.  L'viv had joined the Union in 1700.  Although I have searched diligently, I have never found any evidence of the existence of any Orthodox parishes in the former Austrian province of Galicia dating between 1784 and 1918.  The last Orthodox monastery in Galicia, the Maniava skete, was closed in 1785.  (There may have been an Orthodox Church for visiting diplomats in L'viv, but I don't count that.)  If you know of such, please tell me.

There was an increasing problem in Galicia of people returning to Orthodoxy, many not staying there going across the border to Ukraine or just to the Crown Land of Bukowina, where they eventually made the majority of the autocephalous Metropolitinate of Czernowitz.  The Czar recruited most of the clergy involved in bringing the Cholm eparchy back from Galicia.

This may have been true among some of the more well-to-do, but I doubt that it affected most of the average people.  I do believe that the clergy may well have made such a move.  There were always problems there.

So, to put it short, these people claim that their church is the original Orthodox Church of Kyivan Rus' which fled to the Pope for protection during the Polish times, and that the Russian Metropolitanate of Kyiv was an attempt to steal it away and put it under Russian influence.
The creation of the separate Metropolitinate of Kiev, as shown above, had no Russian involvement until 1556, or really, until 1659, when it appointed the first locum tenens in Kiev.
This is consistent with what I wrote. 

This is why they call their leader, Major Archbishop Shevchuk, a Patriarch, even though he is not officially denominated as such.  I think that many of them would be open to leaving the Union, but not if it meant that they had to be placed under the hated Russian rule.  Only if they could be autocephalous or, at least, under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which they feel was their rightful jurisdiction before the Russians stole it away from them.  The Russian Empire and later the Soviet Union are blamed for destroying Ukrainian independence through the alliance with (and later absorption of) the Cossack Hetmanate in the 17th Century, the Ems Ukase in 1876, the Holodomor, etc., etc.  In Western Ukraine today, which was under Austrian rule, they sell t-shirts that read, "Thank God I am not a Muscovite."  If there were an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church, many of these people would probably join it.  (In fact, many did when the UAOC and the Kyivan Patriarchate arose at various times.  The UAOC drew off a number of American UGCC faithful as well but the Kyivan Patriarchate not so much.)  I think there is an attitude among some of those who are more nationalistic that they are "Ukrainian Orthodox in Exile" until such time as a Ukrainian national church can be properly and securely formed.
That accurately sums up their propaganda.  The truth lies elsewhere, as shown above.

Again, you've lost me.  What do you not agree with in what I wrote?  That many of them consider Constantinople the source of legitimate authority, and regard Moscow as having stolen it away?  That many of them would be willing to leave the Union if an independent Ukrainian Church were established?  That the Russian Empire didn't strive for over a century to assume the Cossack Hetmanate, although even Vasilii III acknowledged in 1539 that he had no control over them?  The Holodomor?  That the Ukrainian language wasn't forbidden?  That they don't sell such t-shirts in Hutsulshchyna?  I'm confused.

The BCC folks (Mukachevo Eparchy) do not consider themselves Ukrainian, so they are somewhat mixed.  I don't know so much about their feelings on the matter, although some among them also resent what they feel was the forced nature of the Union of Uzhhorod in 1646.  I'd be interested to hear more about that.
I've posted a bit just recently on that on another thread.  Lord willing, if needed, I'll post more later.
[/quote]

Please do.  I know those folks don't accept Ukrainian identity.  Some were starorusyny and some believe that they are a separate nation called Carpatho-Rusyns.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,814


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2013, 09:56:57 AM »

Yuri sums up history as I was taught and as taught at the Ukrainian Orthodox Seminary in Bound Brook and the Carpathian Russian/Rusyn Orthodox one in Johnstown (and SS Cyril' s BBC- with minor changes in emphasis in Pittsburgh.)

This in particular is absolutely consistent with the stories personally collected by me from many immigrants of my grandparents era in the 1970s and 80s:

"To be honest, I don't think the people in the villages (leaving apart the church hierarchy and those in leadership positions) were aware or cared a great deal.  They considered themselves Ruthenians who worshipped according to their own rite.  They were simply "nash."  At the time of the Union, some who did inquire about such things were even told that the Pope had become Orthodox.  Indeed, there was so little realization of what had happened that Orthodox service books continued to be used, with handwritten alterations, for over a century, and there had to be decrees made to clearly proclaim the Pope when the hierarchs were commemorated.  It wasn't until the Synod of Zamosc in 1720 that this emphasis really got organized.  Even then, most people still considered themselves of an unchanged faith.  That is why so many immigrants were surprised when they came to America and started learning about what had happened."

Father Barriger' s history of the "borba" (1930s struggles within the American Greek Catholic Church)  and Bishop Chornock's  journey to the Phanar, Good Victory,  reflects this as well.
Logged
Tags: Poland Polish 
Pages: 1   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 0.196 seconds with 57 queries.