Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

President Putin awards the primate of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Intefax ^ | 23 November 2005

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.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Russia
KEYWORDS: nihilism; orthodox; putin; religion; russia; ukraine

1 posted on 11/24/2005 11:42:30 AM PST by lizol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: A knight without armor; DTwistedSisterS; tortoise; Gosh I love this neighborhood; zencat; ...
Eastern European ping list


FRmail me to be added or removed from this Eastern European ping list

2 posted on 11/24/2005 11:43:17 AM PST by lizol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ValenB4; anonymoussierra; zagor-te-nej; Freelance Warrior; kedr; Sober 4 Today; BrooklynGOP; ...

ping


3 posted on 11/24/2005 11:44:13 AM PST by jb6 (The Atheist/Pagan mind, a quandary wrapped in egoism and served with a side order of self importance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mazepa
Ping.

Must be a genuine Ukrainian patriot (sarcasm)
4 posted on 11/24/2005 11:46:29 AM PST by lizol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lizol

In his position, the only question that matters is, not whether he's a patriot, but if he's a Christian. If he is, the rest doesn't matter. And if he isn't, the rest doesn't matter.


5 posted on 11/24/2005 12:01:54 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All

Don't miss the JFK series to be shown this coming Saturday (Nov. 26th, 2005) on the DISCOVERY channel.


6 posted on 11/24/2005 12:08:40 PM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marron
And you really believe, that this is about Christianity only, not about politics?

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.


If you do, then let me not agree with you.
7 posted on 11/24/2005 12:31:45 PM PST by lizol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lizol

I have nothing good to say about this "canonical" KGB outfit. I'm still fighting with my cousin who decided to marry in that church (happened to be the only church in the village).


8 posted on 11/24/2005 12:33:01 PM PST by Mazepa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lizol
And you really believe, that this is about Christianity only, not about politics?

I couldn't possibly be well informed enough to know the answer, which is why I raise the issue. It seems probable that Chernomyrdin is motivated by politics.

My question is, what motivates the Primate?

Chernomyrdin noted in his speech the outstanding role that Metropolitan Vladimir played in the spiritual revival of the Ukrainian and Russian peoples

Has there been a spiritual revival among the Ukrainians and Russians? Has the UO Church played a significant role in this? Is the Primate a man of God or is he just a church bureaucrat? You are closer to the scene than am I.

9 posted on 11/24/2005 12:51:26 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marron; Mazepa
You know, there are 2 Orthodox Churches in Ukraine (plus Greek Catholic Church, which is a different thing).

One is affiliated with Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church - this is this canonical one, as it is recognized by the rest of Orthodoxy.

The second one is independent from Russia.

And when Russian politicians honor the leader of the Church, which cheers deep relations between Ukraine and Russia - - somehow I can't oppose the impression, that politics is deeply involved here.

But maybe Mazepa can answer to your questions - he's Ukrainian.
10 posted on 11/24/2005 1:07:15 PM PST by lizol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lizol
One is affiliated with Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church - this is this canonical one, as it is recognized by the rest of Orthodoxy.

The second one is independent from Russia.

So the second one is schismatic like the Polish National Catholic Church.

11 posted on 11/24/2005 6:10:06 PM PST by A. Pole (Marcus Lucanus: "Pigmies placed on the shoulders of giants see more than the giants themselves.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lizol
The Church that is affiliated with the Moscow Patriarchate or in communion with The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is also in communion with the Orthodox Church in America and most of the other Orthodox Churches worldwide. You must remember Christ is what unites all of us not politics. As for Russian politicians honoring leaders of the Church politics has very little to do with this if you think it is something about the Church itself. You must keep in mind that the Church is growing in Russia and the Ukraine at a phenomenal rate and a rather large constituency is represented here and I could go on.
12 posted on 11/24/2005 8:02:34 PM PST by peter the great
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lizol

==Must be a genuine Ukrainian patriot (sarcasm)==

You wrongly think that only Ukranian patriots who are anti-russian. Luckily most of Ukrainians think different. Metropolitan Vladimir's patriotism is in consolidation of Russia and Ukraine.


13 posted on 11/24/2005 11:11:45 PM PST by mym (Russia - motherland of elephants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mazepa

The KGB hasn't existed for about 10 years.


14 posted on 11/25/2005 6:14:45 AM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: x5452

Who told you that? The name just changed. If Buckwheat Joe started calling himself John Kerry, has there been a significant change?


15 posted on 11/25/2005 12:15:06 PM PST by Mazepa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
So the second one is schismatic like the Polish National Catholic Church.

That's the Russian Church propoganda, along with Ukraine (even if there is such a thing) +Russia= ONE "Russian" people. Ukraine used to have its own church- it wasn't subservient to Moscow. But then in 17th cent. as Russians began destroying institutions of ukrainian independence, they done away with our church. In 1991 Ukraine got its political independence from Russia, but the Russian Orthodox Church stayed.

The major step is the getting the Greeks to recognize Ukr. Ortho. Church- continue the talks they had some months ago.

16 posted on 11/25/2005 12:39:07 PM PST by Mazepa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marron
One thing that I find offensive is how can this Russian syndicate be called a "Church". Alexei, current head, was a KGB asset. And God knows (pun intended) how many others. Think about it- you go to a priest for a confession and by tomorrow it'll be in a report. It's despicable. There's no way around it.
In USSR, up till 80s the churches out there that were still standing, almost ALL were Russian Orthodox while Greek Catholics and independent Ukrainian Orthodox were praying in the woods.

Then there's the behaviour of the "church", it's "christian values" like demonization of other religions. It's incredibly xenophobic. Just look at the behaviour of the two heads, Alexei and John Paul II. One is embracing Jews and Muslims, extending a hand to the Orthodox rite. The other is telling him to get lost and not to "invade" rightfully HIS (!!!!) territory (reference to JP2 visit to Ukraine in 2000 and the reaction of the ROC).

ROC has no business in Ukraine. It's more interested in promoting Moscow's agenda on the FOREIGN Ukrainian soil than saving souls. Like during the presidential elections last year- official heads of the 'church' in Ukraine were calling Yuschenko a demon- quite something.

Holy people my behind.

17 posted on 11/25/2005 1:32:17 PM PST by Mazepa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mym
You wrongly think that only Ukranian patriots who are anti-russian. Luckily most of Ukrainians think different. Metropolitan Vladimir's patriotism is in consolidation of Russia and Ukraine.

Most Ukrainians are indifferent. If there is church nearby, they go to that one (which thanks to the Soviets happen to be Russian Orthodox). In the towns and cities there are more options.

18 posted on 11/25/2005 1:39:04 PM PST by Mazepa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mazepa
That's the Russian Church propoganda, along with Ukraine (even if there is such a thing) +Russia= ONE "Russian" people. Ukraine used to have its own church- it wasn't subservient to Moscow.

This is very interesting. So you are saying that there were TWO Orthodox Churches among Eastern Slavs, one Russian and one Ukrainian? Were the Novgorod Christians part of the Ukrainian Church or Russian one? When was the baptism of Rusia and when was the baptism of Ukraine? Was the church of Nowgorod the separate third Church, if so, when she came into being?

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!

In 1991 Ukraine got its political independence from Russia, but the Russian Orthodox Church stayed.

"Russian Orthodox Church stayed"? WHat do you mean?

The major step is the getting the Greeks to recognize Ukr. Ortho. Church- continue the talks they had some months ago.

So the Church of Greece does not recognized "Ukr. Ortho. Church"? Why is that so? I looked at offical web site of the Church of Greece. It looks that Greeks have excellent relationships with the Russian Church, what were "the talks they had some months ago" about? Who were the sides in these talks?

19 posted on 11/25/2005 7:24:28 PM PST by A. Pole (Marcus Lucanus: "Pigmies placed on the shoulders of giants see more than the giants themselves.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mazepa
Most Ukrainians are indifferent.

You mean that people like you are a minority? What about Lvov area? What is your attitude to the Uniate Church (under Pope)?

20 posted on 11/25/2005 7:28:19 PM PST by A. Pole (Marcus Lucanus: "Pigmies placed on the shoulders of giants see more than the giants themselves.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
So you are saying that there were TWO Orthodox Churches among Eastern Slavs, one Russian and one Ukrainian?

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

21 posted on 11/25/2005 10:07:17 PM PST by Mazepa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
You mean that people like you are a minority? What about Lvov area?

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.

22 posted on 11/25/2005 10:32:40 PM PST by Mazepa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mazepa; lizol; Vorthax; Polak z Polski; Grzegorz 246; Lukasz; JoAnka; warsaw44; anonymoussierra; ...
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.

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.

23 posted on 11/26/2005 7:10:03 AM PST by A. Pole (Marcus Lucanus: "Pigmies placed on the shoulders of giants see more than the giants themselves.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

As usual, I see. :-)


24 posted on 11/26/2005 7:12:10 AM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

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?


25 posted on 11/26/2005 10:22:32 AM PST by Lukasz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Are you Catholic or are you Orthodox?

and you?

26 posted on 11/26/2005 10:26:22 AM PST by Lukasz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Lukasz; A. Pole; GarySpFc
Do you really wish us to have common border with Soviet Union 2, I guess yes

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.

27 posted on 11/26/2005 11:17:28 AM PST by jb6 (The Atheist/Pagan mind, a quandary wrapped in egoism and served with a side order of self importance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jb6

"Voice of Stalin" has spoken.


28 posted on 11/26/2005 11:28:14 AM PST by Lukasz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: lizol

According to you logic Putin should not work to enhance the church and Christian morality in the former Soviet Union?


29 posted on 11/26/2005 11:42:06 AM PST by GarySpFc (De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mazepa

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.


30 posted on 11/26/2005 11:45:10 AM PST by GarySpFc (De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
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).

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.

31 posted on 11/26/2005 12:52:32 PM PST by Mazepa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mazepa
Ukrainian church and the Russian church were sister churches, part of the Byzantine jurisdiction

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.

32 posted on 11/26/2005 1:12:25 PM PST by A. Pole (Marcus Lucanus: "Pigmies placed on the shoulders of giants see more than the giants themselves.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
So according to you the Russian Orthodox Church is caonical KGB.

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.

33 posted on 11/26/2005 1:16:04 PM PST by Mazepa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mazepa
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).

And you think the Pope doesn't have these things? Mind you, I am not condemning either one, but if you are going to condemn one, then the other deserves your wrath equally.
34 posted on 11/26/2005 1:33:02 PM PST by GarySpFc (De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
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?

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.

35 posted on 11/26/2005 1:50:57 PM PST by Mazepa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mazepa
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.

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).

36 posted on 11/26/2005 1:55:58 PM PST by A. Pole (Marcus Lucanus: "Pigmies placed on the shoulders of giants see more than the giants themselves.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
And you think the Pope doesn't have these things?

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.

37 posted on 11/26/2005 2:07:08 PM PST by Mazepa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Lukasz
"Voice of Stalin" has spoken.

So what do you have to say, voice?

38 posted on 11/26/2005 6:11:00 PM PST by jb6 (The Atheist/Pagan mind, a quandary wrapped in egoism and served with a side order of self importance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mazepa; GarySpFc; A. Pole

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.


39 posted on 11/26/2005 6:20:51 PM PST by jb6 (The Atheist/Pagan mind, a quandary wrapped in egoism and served with a side order of self importance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mym
No I don't think, that Ukranian patriots are those, who are anti-Russian. I think, that Ukranian patriots are those, who are pro-Ukrainian, and want to have normal, free, independent Ukrainian state.

Unfortunately - in those circumstances it means usually being anti-Russian too, as Russia definitely doesn't like such Ukraine.

Metropolitan Vladimir's stance is something, that I'd call pan-Slavism, not Ukrainian patriotism.
40 posted on 11/27/2005 6:10:33 AM PST by lizol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lizol

==I think, that Ukranian patriots are those, who are pro-Ukrainian, and want to have normal, free, independent Ukrainian state.==

Pro-Ukrainian means "wish good for Ukraine". I, to clear my position, think that Russia, Ukraine and Belorussia must be one country or at least closest allies.

I think that many Ukrainian patriots who wish the very best for Ukraine think the same.


41 posted on 11/27/2005 6:48:54 AM PST by mym (Russia - motherland of elephants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mym

Well, that's your opinion, but let me not agree with you.


42 posted on 11/27/2005 7:11:21 AM PST by lizol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mazepa

==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.==

Actually history is more complex. Most of Russian principalities including Great Principality of Vladimir (later Moscow) were under Mongols. This means 1) they paid tribute to Kazan, 2) Kazan approved princes. Mongols did not live among Russians (but Russian slaves lived among Mongols). Some Russian principalities (for example Novgorod) were not under Mongols.

But all Russian principalities constantly (in unions of singly) fought each other and Mongols. So 'puppet' is not right since their politics was independent.


43 posted on 11/27/2005 7:25:15 AM PST by mym (Russia - motherland of elephants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: lizol

==Well, that's your opinion, but let me not agree with you.==

Yes, of course. I respect your position.
The questions of integration at last depend on position of Belorussians/Ukrainians/Russians. All must be solved civilized, by referendums. Without hurry.


44 posted on 11/27/2005 7:31:47 AM PST by mym (Russia - motherland of elephants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: mym
But all Russian principalities constantly (in unions of singly) fought each other and Mongols. So 'puppet' is not right since their politics was independent

Moscow is special. Mongols made them their representatives; so if a tribute to the Mongols had to be collected from a principality, Moscow was the the one doing the collecting. If someone had refused the Mongols, Moscow was on the side of the Mongols sending the punitive armies and enforcing the Mongol order.

So Russians can complain about the "Tatar yoke" till their faces turn blue, but in reality, as whole towns were being depopulated elsewhere, Moscow cooperated with Mongols, growing fat on someone else's money and misery. Before anyone even mentions Kulikovo Polie and the (brave) Russians fighting Mongol-Tatars, let me say that it's irrelevant. They fought back after more than a century of being their enforcers- a useless attempt at redemption.

45 posted on 11/27/2005 1:44:11 PM PST by Mazepa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: mym
I, to clear my position, think that Russia, Ukraine and Belorussia must be one country or at least closest allies.

Being pro-Ukrainian and what you said above simply don't go together. Besides half of the population not knowing their native language, the Chornobyl reactor, and half of Siberia covered with Ukrainian bones, what has Ukraine achieved in these last 300 years that it "co-operated" with Russia? Hate to invoke the the tiresome cliche phrase- those who haven't learned history are doomed to repeat it.

46 posted on 11/27/2005 1:59:40 PM PST by Mazepa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
A friend of mine has an "Encyclopedia of Ukraine" and under "Church, history" there is a detailed account. To summorize it- metropolitan of Kyiv moves to Moscow. Shortly after, in 1302, Halych (Galicia) demands its own metropolitan from the the Greeks and gets it. Lithuanians get one as well. All three claim the Kyiv region. When Galicia is conquered by Poles in mid 14th cent. Halych church folds. 1350s- Lithuania and Moscow redivide again and the Greek patriarch grants Moscow most of modern day Ukraine and Lithuania today's W. Ukraine. 1371 Poles, in control of Halych, demand form Greeks and are granted the re-establishment of Halych metropoly (they get the W. Ukrainian lands). Lithuanians demand and if understand the text correctly are granted the jurisdiction over Kyiv, Smolensk, Tver, Nizhni Novgorod. In 1373 a Serbian monk Cyprian became ordained as "the metropolitan of Kyiv" and moved to Moscow in 1389. He managed to unite Lithuanian and Galician metropolies under him. (ie. ONE church). In 1414 Lithuanians attempt to create a new metropoly for themselves and elect Tsamblak, but in Greece he is not recognized. Tsamblak takes over Polatsk, Smolensk, modern day Volyn and some of Galicia. He is excomunicated by the Greeks but it's ignored. I gather eventually relations are normalized and metropolitan of this church attends the council of Florence in 1439, signing that union. Russians do their autocephaly in 1448, have the title of "metropolitan of Moscow and all Rus'. In Poland-Lithuania, 1458, a new metropolitan is appointed, titled "of Kyiv and an all Rus'. Then a series of metropolitans are followed.

In 1595 Orthodox church (the bishops) are split, Uniate is created and proclaimed in 1596. Anti-Uniates have their own assembly. Catholic repression of Orthodox begins. Cossack revolt in 1620 leads to a creation of a new Orthodox patriarch in Kyiv consecrated by the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Uniate versus Orthodox conflict continues, with some attempts at reconciliation. Mohyla (a very well known name in Ukraine) is elected a metropolitan of Kyiv in 1633. He died in 1647. Khmelnytsky revolution followed. Then in 1686, for a price of 200 coins and 120 furs, Patriarchate Dionysios transferred the control of the Kyiv metropolitan from Greek to Moscow's jurisdiction. (May he &^#$@&^@&^^) Phew, got tired.
You're welcome.

47 posted on 11/27/2005 3:31:29 PM PST by Mazepa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Well one way to solve this sort of dilemma is to move to a tiny little town in the Mid West peopled by people of Scotish lineage who mostly attend the local Baptist Church!

That would be my grand dad ... :-)


48 posted on 11/28/2005 11:09:07 AM PST by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson