Posted on 11/24/2005 11:42:29 AM PST by lizol
President Putin awards the primate of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Kiev, November 23, Interfax - Russian Ambassador to Ukraine Victor Chernomyrdin presented Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev and All Ukraine with the Order of Honour in recognition of his services in the development of religious and cultural traditions and consolidation of Russia-Ukrainian relations.
As the press service of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has reported on Wednesday, Chernomyrdin noted in his speech the outstanding role that Metropolitan Vladimir played in the spiritual revival of the Ukrainian and Russian peoples and consolidation of friendship and cooperation between the two fraternal nations.
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the decree awarding Metropolitan Vladimir on June 28.
Today the primate of the canonical Ukrainian Church, who marks his 70th birthday, has also been awarded the Order of St. Alexis the Metropolitan of Moscow, First Degree.
To be even more specific Ukraine has 3 orthodox churches- one, Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church- this church declared independence from Russia during the 1917 revolution; second, Ukr. Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patiarchate)- declared independence in 1989; third- the Russians. The first two being separate is ridiculous- they're due to merge any year now.
And yes, Ukraine used to have its own metropolitan, which was subjected only to the Greeks. Novgorod, Moscow etc. were part of the Russian, Kyiv, Ukraine was not. It came to be under Moscow's control in 1686. Up till 1589 Moscow was also subservient to Constantinople, and in effect it was on the same level as Kyiv, but then Russians declared independence from the Greeks. Afterwords, the damn Pereyaslav in 1654, and in 1686 Kyiv Church came to be under Moscow.
When was the baptism of Rusia and when was the baptism of Ukraine?
Territories of modern day Russia and Ukraine were baptized at the same time (988). When Mongols came, Rus was divided. Lithuaniians, Galicia, Moscow created their own churches and all claimed to be the inheritor of Rus.
Was the church of Nowgorod the separate third Church, if so, when she came into being?
I'm not too sure there was one. If there was I'd suspect it came to be when Mongols invaded, and ceased to exist when Moscow conquered Novgorod.
But then in 17th cent. as Russians began destroying institutions of ukrainian independence, they done away with our church.
How could they do it? Ukraine was under POLISH rule at that time!
Come on joker. I meant after the Pereyaslav Treaty (1654) obviously.
"Russian Orthodox Church stayed"? WHat do you mean?
1991=USSR collapse= Ukraine's independence. But something as influential as the church remained in the Russian hands. This doesn't equate with Ukraine being independent.
This is how it actually worked. In USSR there was only ONE church- Moscow's. In 1989, as USSR was about to die off, there was several brave clergymen which were IN this Russian church who declared their independence from Moscow. Hundreds of others joined and Kyiv Patriarchate was created. It was all up to the priests who were in control of the actual church building- they decided who they wanted to join- Moscow or the newly created Kyiv. As more and more parishes converted to Kyiv, Moscow flooded Ukraine with Russian-born priests who would replace the ones in the churches. So it's quite common that a priest of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), on the TERRITORY OF UKRAINE, is from Tula or some other Russian region.
It's quite exciting- like in an army- mutinies, defections, plus politics.
So the Church of Greece does not recognized "Ukr. Ortho. Church"? Why is that so?
Do you have to ask why? 'Cause Russia controls a fifth of the Earth's surface and Greeks aren't as brave as we'd like them to be.
what were "the talks they had some months ago" about? Who were the sides in these talks?
I'd have to look it up so I promise to get back to you. Something else I found
Of particular concern to the ROC is Constantinople Patriarch Bartholomew I's declaration in June that Ukraine lies within its canonical territory. That claim, which is backed by the Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian, and Georgian Orthodox Churches, is based on Constantinople's non-recognition of the forcible transfer of the Kyiv Orthodox Metropolitanate to Moscow in 1686, making the ROC's control over Ukraine uncanonical in the eyes of Constantinople.Source
That's the thing, people who are nationally conscious are bothered by this, those who aren't- aren't bothered.
What is your attitude to the Uniate Church (under Pope)?
Let's see- my mother is from Galicia and is a Greek Catholic. I've spent all my summer vacations in the village with my grandma, a Greek Catholic. You decide. :)
BTW, my dad is Orthodox.
My general outlook on the Union- it was a negative in the 16, 17th, 18th centuries because it split the Ukrainians up, but in the 20th century - a huge positive. It slowed down the the russification/assimilation of Western Ukraine dramatically. That's how we get the current Galician patriots. And it was a link to the outside world. Like you Poles- you were a part of the bigger community than the Soviet Block.
You know, it is probable and expected that the 3 churches- UOC (Kyiv), Autocephalous and Greek Catholics would become one church in the future.
I do not understand what you are saying. I looked up some sources and it is what I found:
Before Unia and transfer of eastern Ukraine from Polish into Russian rule, there was ONE metropolitan in the Russian/Ukrainian lands. He was residing in in Kiev and was the leader of the ONE church including today's Ukraine, Belarus, Russia (both Moscow and Novgorod regions).
As a result of Mongol invasions and destruction of Kiev the metropolitan moved to Vladimir - the city in north east (in Moscow region). It was still the ONE church. Later the territories of today's Belarus and Ukraine were conquered by Lithuanians and dominated by the Poles (who united with Lithuanians). Still both parts of the eastern Slavic church were one jurisdiction and not two. Only later when the Moscow grew as the leading power in eastern Rus she gained the independence from the Constantinople (became "auto-cephalous"). The Orthodox church under Polish rule was forcefully integrated into Roman Catholic Church while preserving her Byzantine rites. Is it what you mean by the TWO churches?
It came to be under Moscow's control in 1686. Up till 1589 Moscow was also subservient to Constantinople, and in effect it was on the same level as Kyiv, but then Russians declared independence from the Greeks.
I looked it up too. What happened in 1589 it was that the autocephaly of Moscow church was recognized by all Orthodox including Constantinople and the metropolitan of Moscow became a Patriarch (Patriarchs are the highest ranking bishops in Orthodox church, fully sovereign). But the actual autocephaly of the Russian Church derived from much earlier time - of the fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Turks and temporary sumbission of Patiarch of Constantinople to the Pope of Rome (original Unia of Florence). See some info on History of the Russian Church
Afterwords, the damn Pereyaslav in 1654, and in 1686 Kyiv Church came to be under Moscow
Would you expect that there would two separate jurisdictions kept divided by the future border line drawn by the Bolsheviks in XX century? BTW, this area in the east was the one which voted for Yanukovych and which is Russian speaking.
[A. Pole:]So the Church of Greece does not recognized "Ukr. Ortho. Church"? Why is that so?
[Mazepa:] Do you have to ask why? 'Cause Russia controls a fifth of the Earth's surface and Greeks aren't as brave as we'd like them to be.
I know several Greeks and they are not afraid of Russia, rather they appear to LIKE Russia very much!
"Something else I found "Of particular concern to the ROC is Constantinople Patriarch Bartholomew I's declaration in June that Ukraine lies within its canonical territory."
The source is some Ukrainian nationalist in Canada. Do you have an official source from Constantinople Patriarch Bartholomew about his claim?
[in your next post:]
Let's see- my mother is from Galicia and is a Greek Catholic. I've spent all my summer vacations in the village with my grandma, a Greek Catholic. You decide. :) BTW, my dad is Orthodox.
It is you who has to decide. Are you Catholic or are you Orthodox?
My general outlook on the Union- it was a negative in the 16, 17th, 18th centuries because it split the Ukrainians up, but in the 20th century - a huge positive.
Are the matters of church/faith secondary in relations to national issue? Is it the position of your friends?
You know, it is probable and expected that the 3 churches- UOC (Kyiv), Autocephalous and Greek Catholics would become one church in the future.
If this happen will this "united" church be Catholic or Orthodox? What is your preference? I understand that if the first then your church will not be a independent church - it will be a part of the Church of Rome.
As usual, I see. :-)
I see that you again spreading Kremlin’s influence over whole Eastern Europe. I should treat it as a kind of perversion or maybe high treason? Do you really wish us to have common border with Soviet Union 2, I guess yes. What interest you have to support KGB Alexy, right hand of KGB Putin?
and you?
Sorry to burst your bubble, well actually I'm not, I take great joy in it. You ARE PART of the Soviet Union v2.0 . You are now a backwater province of the Soviet States of Europe and Judases like you sold out your own nation for a bag of silver coins. History will be the judge of you yet.
"Voice of Stalin" has spoken.
According to you logic Putin should not work to enhance the church and Christian morality in the former Soviet Union?
So according to you the Russian Orthodox Church is caonical KGB. I would be extremely careful of such statements. "If" they are part of the body of Christ, then you are treading on very dangerous ground with the Lord.
The move (some hundred years after the initial Mongol onslaught) of the metropolitan from Kyiv to Vladimir to Moscow is what substantiates the Russian claim to all of the former Rus'. A huge problem with that- Moscow was a Mongol puppet state. A more modern similarity- Nazis conquer France in 1940 and create a puppet, Vichy France, which claims the authority over all french territories. But there's also the Free French, hiding out somewhere in Senegal. Tell me who has the right to France and the French empire, the puppet or another region of French empire like Senegal?
Still both parts of the eastern Slavic church were one jurisdiction and not two.
No that's is incorrect. For example Halychyna, before AND after the Poles came, had their own metropolitan and was part of Constantinople jurisdiction not Moscow. I'm repeating myself- as Rus was destroyed its principalities became politically independent and isolated from each other, and so they created their own churches.
The Orthodox church under Polish rule was forcefully integrated into Roman Catholic Church while preserving her Byzantine rites.
No it wasn't, a PART of the Orthodox churches became Uniates but Orthodox Church existed in Poland-Lithuania. Sure, it was persecuted by the Catholic Poles but it remained strong. Ukrainian Cossacks, they weren't praying in the Moscow's church
Is it what you mean by the TWO churches?
No, that Ukrainian church and the Russian church were sister churches, part of the Byzantine jurisdiction; ==> Kyiv was not a part of Moscow.
What happened in 1589 it was that the autocephaly of Moscow church...
Then the Moscow church are schismatics,:)
Would you expect that there would two separate jurisdictions kept divided by the future border line drawn by the Bolsheviks in XX century?
My turn to not understand what is written. Bolsheviks defined borders of Ukraine? If that's what you meant then I'm in shock.
Here's an insight- Ukrainians existed before Bolshevics.
BTW, this area in the east was the one which voted for Yanukovych and which is Russian speaking.
You mean 'this area in the east was part of Moscow jurisdiction in 17th cent.'? Another insight- if there were priests present in the eastern and the southern Ukraine the only ones whom they would be able to preach to would be wolves and wild horses- the region was not populated (minus Slobodschyna).
The source is some Ukrainian nationalist in Canada. Do you have an official source from Constantinople Patriarch Bartholomew about his claim?
How convenient to discredit the source by calling him a nationalist in Canada. OK, I'll try to do better
http://www.risu.org.ua/eng/news/article;6059
Fifth story down the page.
Scroll down the page at this site
I know several Greeks and they are not afraid of Russia, rather they appear to LIKE Russia very much!
I support the opinion of this guy- Russians freaked out when Greeks supported Estonian church's independence from Moscow, imagine what Russia would do if Ukraine did the same, they'd go into coma. (Scroll down almost to the end of this site (Historical sidenote- Moscow took over Estonia's church when Soviets invaded in 1940, nice)
It is you who has to decide. Are you Catholic or are you Orthodox
What if I tell you there's no difference. Liturgy is identical, holidays are the same. BTW, in Ukrainian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate liturgy is in Russian and is officially supported by the Communist Party of Ukraine, another Russian agent on the Ukrainian soil.
Are the matters of church/faith secondary in relations to national issue?
HAHAAHAHA- the naivette. Of course. Everything is political. I accuse Russians of the same- they use the church for nothing but politics.
Is it the position of your friends?
Hard question. I'm a city guy and most of my friends don't care that much which church to go to, so if there was an Ethiopian church nearby they'd go to that one. :)
If this happen will this "united" church be Catholic or Orthodox? What is your preference?
Orthodox.
To be sister churches they had to be distinct. Can you describe this distinction before the fall of Constantinople, and before the Unia of Florence in XV century?
Were there are another "sister churches" like that? How this differentiation was affected by the 1299 move of metropolitan see from Kiev to Vladimir (closer to Moscow) after the destruction of Kiev by the Mongols?
My turn to not understand what is written. Bolsheviks defined borders of Ukraine? If that's what you meant then I'm in shock. Here's an insight- Ukrainians existed before Bolsheviks.
The Ukrainian republic was created by the Soviet government. The eastern border was drawn by the Soviet government and this process of expansion was done with Khrushchev adding Crimea. As a result large lands in the east which are ethnically and historically Russian became part of Ukraine. Western border of the Ukraine was drawn by Soviets when they took Lvov area from Poland and easternmost part of Czechoslovakia. Northern was drawn when Soviets decided where the Belorus is. Southern border was defined by the creation of Moldavian republic.
Yes, I believe that's my exact line :)
"If" they are part of the body of Christ, then you are treading on very dangerous ground with the Lord.
That's a huge "IF". ROC is a corrupt entity with vast landholdings (I remember watching a program some years ago- Alexei, servant of God, drives in a half a million dollar Benz). Ever since Peter I it has been under the thumb of the Russian government and employed as a tool. But especially after this 20th century and its KGB links, how can it call itself a religious institution is beyond me.
These are some serious question which would require more research on my part (I hope you're asking because you're interested in this matter, and not just pulling my leg.) For now I'd just say that it happened, that metropolitan of Kyiv was established, then some centuries later it was subjected to Russia.
Other "sister churches" are just branches of Orthodoxy- Armenia, Syria, Serbia, Ethiopia etc. For example Georgia, which if I recall, along with Armenia had one of the earliest Orthodox churches and simply had to be on par Moscow's. And yet Georgian Church became part of the Moscow Patriarchate.
The Ukrainian republic was created by the Soviet government. The eastern border was drawn by the Soviet government
That's 1922. But in 1918, 4 years prior, a little event took place- Ukraine had declared independence. The Ukrainian National Republic had borders which closely correspond to today. (Actually, parts of the Voronezh and Kursk regions were also included.)
A question I hope you're asking yourself is on what basis these demarcation lines (between Russia and Ukraine, and those other states) were made.
As a result large lands in the east which are ethnically and historically Russian became part of Ukraine.
I've disputed this Russian fairy tale so many times on the net it's getting annoying. Eastern and Southern Ukraine (minus Crimea of course) NEVER had a Russian majority. Kharkiv, Zaporizhia, Kherson, Dnipropetrovsk, Odesa in pre-revolution times had 70-75% Ukrainian composition. Even that same Donbas had a three quarter majority of Ukrainians.
I am not pulling your leg. And I will be interested if you find something different than I have found (things like that metropolitan see was moved from Kiev to Vladimir in 1299 etc).
Doesn't have what? A contact at Lubyanka? :)))) I hope not.
Mind you, I am not condemning either one, but if you are going to condemn one, then the other deserves your wrath equally.
Good point.
My reasoning of Pope vs. the Russian guy goes along these lines- one is far way, all the way somewhere in Italy, the other is in the neihboring country and has direct influence on the affairs of Ukraine.
So what do you have to say, voice?
The Vatican has direct control or influence in nations on the other side of the world (Ever heard of why the Founding Fathers warned against the Jesuits?) well out of proportions to their locations. But regardless, you're either Orthodox or Catholic or Protestant, and that alone will explain quite a bit of your stance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.