A Survey of Major Religions in 21st Century Ukraine
AGG
A Survey of Major Religions in 21st Century Ukraine
Over 97% of the religious communities now registered in Ukraine are
Christian. About half of these communities are of the Orthodox
tradition. The other half is divided among Catholics and Protestants.
According to official terminology the three major Orthodox
jurisdictions and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church belong to the
category "traditional Churches." The Roman Catholic Church is
considered an «historical Church.» Orthodox Churches
The ORTHODOX CHURCHES in Ukraine trace their history back to the
beginning of Christianity in Ukraine in 988, when St. Volodymyr the
Great accepted the Byzantine-Slavic rite of Christianity for his
people. The disputes of recent history have separated these groups,
but they share a common background and similar (Byzantine-Slavic)
theological and liturgical traditions.
There are three major Orthodox jurisdictions in Ukraine:
* The Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) has 9049
communities, most of which are located in central and southeastern
Ukraine. http://www.risu.org.ua/content.php?menu=1701&page_id=45
* The Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate (UOC-KP) has 2781
communities, of which about a third are in the central regions and
about
10% in southeastern areas.
http://www.risu.org.ua/content.php?menu=1702&page_id=47
* The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) has 1015
communities; about 80% are located in western Ukraine.
http://www.risu.org.ua/content.php?menu=1703&page_id=49
Catholic Churches
The different CATHOLIC CHURCHES of Ukraine share full communion with
the Pope of Rome and with each other. Their historical backgrounds,
however, and theological and liturgical traditions are significantly
different. These Catholic Churches are Churches sui juris, they are in
full and visible communion with the Roman Apostolic See, but they have
separate eparchial (diocesan) structures, liturgical life, canonical
order, historical and cultural particularities and so on.
There are two major Catholic Churches represented in Ukraine:
* The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) has 3317 communities, the
vast majority of which are located in western Ukraine.
http://www.risu.org.ua/content.php?menu=1704&page_id=50
* The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has 807 communities, of which more
than half are in the central regions.
http://www.risu.org.ua/content.php?menu=1705&page_id=51
The Armenian Catholic Church had a significant presence in Ukraine
before World War Two. It is now trying to form communities again.
http://www.risu.org.ua/content.php?menu=1718&page_id=121&l=en
Pre-Chalcedonian Church
The Armenian Apostolic Church has had a significant presence in
Ukraine since at least the 11th century. It is a pre-Chalcedonian
Church, in ecclesial communion neither with Eastern Orthodox of the
Byzantine Tradition nor with Catholics. It has 16 communities in
various regions of Ukraine.
http://www.risu.org.ua/content.php?menu=1706&page_id=52
Protestant Churches and Communities
PROTESTANT CHURCHES AND COMMUNITIES have been present in Ukraine since
the times of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. Their
numbers and varieties increased through the 19th and 20th centuries.
And with Ukrainian independence and freedom of conscience in 1991,
they have taken a prominent place in the Ukrainian religious scene.
* The Baptist Church was brought to Ukraine by German missionaries in
the 1860s and 1870s. It now has 2446 communities and is located
throughout Ukraine. http://www.risu.org.ua/content.php?menu=1707&page_id=54
* Pentecostals have been in Ukraine since before the First World War.
There are now 1622 communities located throughout Ukraine.
http://www.risu.org.ua/content.php?menu=1708&page_id=56
* Seventh-Day Adventists have been in Ukraine since the 1880s. They
now have 849 communities in various regions of Ukraine.
http://www.risu.org.ua/content.php?menu=1709&page_id=58
* The Sub-Carpathian Reformed Church began at the time of John Calvin
himself. It has 105 communities and is located in Transcarpathian
(southwestern) Ukraine.
http://www.risu.org.ua/content.php?menu=1710&page_id=59
* The Lutheran Church has been in Ukraine since the 16th century. It
has 61 communities, generally located in major cities.
http://www.risu.org.ua/content.php?menu=1711&page_id=60
Other Major Faiths
OTHER MAJOR FAITHS have also been important throughout the history of
Ukraine and today still have a significant presence here.
* JEWS have been in Ukraine since the 4th century B.C. In the middle
ages large numbers of Jews came to the Slav lands, and Ukraine in
particular, and stayed and flourished. Though the Nazis murdered
countless Ukrainian Jews in the 1940s, the Jewish community has begun
to revive with the collapse of the Soviet Union. There are now 198
communities, located in various regions of Ukraine.
http://www.risu.org.ua/content.php?menu=1713&page_id=61
* The main group of MUSLIMS in Ukraine is the Tatars. They have
inhabited the Crimean peninsula for over seven centuries. Forcibly
deported by Stalin en masse in 1944, many survivors and their
descendants have returned to independent Ukraine. There are now 391
Islamic communities and, though the majority are in Crimea, there are
now also communities in some cities like Kyiv.
http://www.risu.org.ua/content.php?menu=1714&page_id=64
Non-traditional and New Religious Movements
NON-TRADITIONAL and NEW RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS have also come to Ukraine.
The amount of communities and the amount of faithful of these groups
are growing dynamically.
The Jehovah's Witnesses have been in Ukraine since the first half of
the
20th century. They have 655 communities, the majority of which are in
the western part of Ukraine.
http://www.risu.org.ua/content.php?menu=1715&page_id=84
White Brotherhood http://www.risu.org.ua/content.php?menu=1717&page_id=113&l=en
__________________________________
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
Cunneen
Why do these surveys give number of churches, and not number of members???
Lots of small churches may not have nearly the same number of members as a
smaller number of large ones.
In the US, the Greek Orthodox and the OCA have about 600 churches each, and
around 2 million each in membership. The Episcopal Church has over 7,000
churches... and a membership of about 2 million.
Comparing the number of churches doesn't say much, unless the churches are
equally big and equally full.
Al
I only post the article. I don't have answers to your thoughtful
questions. You do have a point.
Al
cun...@aol.com (Cunneen) wrote in message news:<20040203160222...@mb-m11.aol.com>...
T254
Latest statistics of Religion in Ukraine -
NEW STATISTICS ON RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS IN UKRAINE
Official information on the development of the structure of religious
organizations in 2002 and statistical data on the number of religious
organizations in Ukraine as of January 1, 2003, were made public at the
press-conference that took place at the State Committee for Ukraine on February
4.
The chairman of the State Committee for Religions, Mr. Victor Bondarenko, noted
that over half of the administrative-territorial constituent regions in Ukraine
have in their territories over one thousand religious communities each.
According to the data of the committee, at present there are 28.567 religious
organizations in Ukraine (including 27.480 religious communities) belonging to
54 religious trends. Out of the total number of religious communities, 1082
communities function without registration. In 2003, the number of religious
organizations has increased by 1423 organizations (5,7%), including 726 (52,4%)
Orthodox ones. Out of this number, 72.3% (525) are communities belonging to the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC MP), which is not
only the largest but also the most dynamic religious organization in the
country. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church numbers 10.040 communities. In 2002,
registration was granted to 11 monasteries of the UOC MP (41,5% out of all
newly registered organizations).
The second largest organization is the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church having
3334 communities. Registration has been also granted to 3196 communities of the
schismatic "Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate" (UOC KP), and
to 1110 communities of the schismatic "Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church"
(UAOC). The latter number almost doubles the statistics presented by the
"Autocephalists" themselves.
Registered in Ukraine are also 847 Roman Catholic communities, 2272 Baptists
communities, 1366 Pentecostal communities, 928 Adventist communities, 790
charismatic communities, 262 Jewish communities, 462 Muslim communities
(including 320 communities in the Crimea). The newest religious cults amount to
4,5% of the total number of religious communities.
The number of worship buildings in Ukraine has reached 19112 (increase by 478),
but only 72% of the religious communities, fewer than before, are provided with
facilities. The only religious organization fully provided with churches is the
Transcarpathian Reformed Church.
The UOC MP is provided with churches by 85,8 percent. At the same time, there
are 2232 worship buildings being built in Ukraine at present including 439 ones
built with the help of the state. There are 26000 clergy of various confessions
in Ukraine, including 704 foreigners.
In the beginning of the 90s of the 20th century, there were over 1000
inter-confessional conflicts registered in Ukraine. Today there are about 100
disputed establishments but in 2002 there was not a single case of open
interreligious confrontation with use of force.
---------------------
All one has to do is go to the OCA website and go thru the visit of
Metropolitan Herman to Ukraine a few months back. Considering the fact that he
only visited canonical Orthodox paces of worship, the pictures speak for
themselves! They crtainly don't show small crowds or unfilled churches as both
the RC's and Uniates like to claim!
Bob
Bob Tallick
learner
> In the US, the Greek Orthodox and the OCA have about 600 churches each, and
> around 2 million each in membership. The Episcopal Church has over 7,000
> churches... and a membership of about 2 million.
> Comparing the number of churches doesn't say much, unless the churches are
> equally big and equally full.
You make an interesting point which raises the issue of who is
considered a Church member by each group.
In the case of the stats cited above, the average Episcopal Church
would have around 280 members - which seems believable. The average
Orthodox Church [based on these numbers] would have over 3,300 members
each - something I find somewhat unbelievable, to say the least.
Learner
Cunneen
>Metropolitan Herman to Ukraine a few months back. Considering the fact that
>he
>only visited canonical Orthodox paces of worship, the pictures speak for
>themselves! They crtainly don't show small crowds or unfilled churches as
>both
>the RC's and Uniates like to claim!
>
>Bob
>
Bob, you're such a paranoid! All I wanted to know is what the membership
figures are; the number of churches is a poor indicator of actual membership.
You're reading a whole lot of paranoia into my question!
You know the situation; why don't the churches publish membership numbers like
the churches in this country?
Polik
are UOC MP.
Just a personal reflection.
Polik.
"T254" <t2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040204112242...@mb-m25.aol.com...
Lee Malatesta
> You know the situation; why don't the churches publish membership numbers like
> the churches in this country?
Out of curiosity, are such numbers good for anything other than petty
bickering on USENET?
Regards,
Lee
T254
>bickering on USENET?
Exactly!
Bob Tallick
T254
I was addressing Johnny Boys comments, not yours.
>You know the situation; why don't the churches publish membership numbers
>like
>the churches in this country?
Because its not an eastern european thing. Once in an interview with the MP
bishop here in North America he was asked a question. His reply
was..."Statistics, statistics, why are you Americans so obsessed with the
statistics? For what reason is the statistics?"
The very fact that they suffered so long under communism has made them paranoid
regarding things like statistics.
Bob
Bob Tallick
The Black Monk
Than why mention the number of communities? Isn't that as much of a
statistic as the number of believer?
regards,
BM
> Bob
>
> Bob Tallick
T254
>statistic as the number of believer?
Not really.
Bob Tallick
Cunneen
We're going to have the petty bickering anyway; at least it would be nice to
have some hard statistics to bicker about, rather than rumors and anecdotal
evidence.
Numbers are not a qualitative measure of church life, but they do let us know
how many we are NOT reaching.
Lee Malatesta
> >> You know the situation; why don't the churches publish membership numbers
> >like
> >> the churches in this country?
> >
> >Out of curiosity, are such numbers good for anything other than petty
> >bickering on USENET?
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Lee
> >
>
> We're going to have the petty bickering anyway; at least it would be nice to
> have some hard statistics to bicker about, rather than rumors and anecdotal
> evidence.
True, but why should the Ukranians care about whether we have had
numbers?
> Numbers are not a qualitative measure of church life, but they do let us know
> how many we are NOT reaching.
Do they? I would think they would be meaningless in a culture where to
be "Orthodox" is not incompatible with being atheist.
Regards,
Lee
T254
>be "Orthodox" is not incompatible with being atheist.
And how does that differ from religious statistics here in the U.S. or western
europe for that matter? Many of my friends and neighbors consider themselves
ad devout Roman Catholcs or Protestants but haven't been to church in ages. My
block consists of 48 homes. Out of those 48 over half of the households would
classify themselves as Roman Catholics. Yet I only know of one person that
attends Mass on a regular basis. Probably because she teaches in a parochial
school. The rest don't even attend Mass on Christmas and/or Easter.
I also know Orthodox how classify themselves as such but do not attend church
on a regular basis.
Also, most Jews I know will classify themselves as jewish but none go to the
Synagogue. Even on the high holy days.
Membership statistics mean nothing.
Bob Tallick
Cunneen
>western
>europe for that matter? Many of my friends and neighbors consider themselves
>ad devout Roman Catholcs or Protestants but haven't been to church in ages.
>My
>block consists of 48 homes. Out of those 48 over half of the households
>would
>classify themselves as Roman Catholics. Yet I only know of one person that
>attends Mass on a regular basis. Probably because she teaches in a parochial
>school. The rest don't even attend Mass on Christmas and/or Easter.
If they don't attend, then they are probably not registered in the local
church. And if they aren't registered, they won't be counted in the annual
national census. The numbers therefore actually do reflect the churchgoing
population, not their self-classification.
T254
>church. And if they aren't registered, they won't be counted in the annual
>national census. The numbers therefore actually do reflect the churchgoing
>population, not their self-classification.
If they weren't registered in the local paish then they wouldn't be buried from
the local parish, would they? My Roman Catholic neighbors wife died about six
months ago and was buried from that church. I also have a non church going
Roman Catholic friend whose father was a devout non church going Lutheran.
When the father died my friend had him buried from the local Roman Catholic
Church with a funeral Mass. No priest ever bothered to ask if he was a
registered member of the parish or even a Roman Catholic. The man is bured in
a Roman Catholic parish cemetary!
Besides all of them send their kids to the local parish parochial school.
Don't they have to be parish members to register for the parish rates?
In Eastern Europe there is no such thing as a parish membership. We have
problems with the people from Russia, Bulgaria, Ukraine, etc. that start going
to our parish when they are approached to become official members. The whole
thing is foreign to them.
Bob Tallick
Lee Malatesta
> Many of my friends and neighbors consider themselves
> ad devout Roman Catholcs or Protestants but haven't been to church in ages.
Personally I think that there is a qualitative difference between
someone who considers themselves to be Catholic or Orthodox and doesn't
attend Church and someone who considers themselves to be Catholic or
Orthodox and does not believe that God exists.
> Membership statistics mean nothing.
That much I agree with. My whole point of mentioning Russia where some
70% of the population considers itself Orthodox while less than half
believes that God exists is precisely to point out that membership
statistics mean nothing.
Regards,
Lee
T254
> Membership statistics mean nothing.
You respond with -
"That much I agree with."
=========
But then you go on to write a contradiction to the above agreement when you
state -
My whole point of mentioning Russia where some
70% of the population considers itself Orthodox while less than half
believes that God exists is precisely to point out that membership
statistics mean nothing.
Where do you get the above statistics from? They sound like they just came out
of an article wriiten by an Evangelical trying to justify proseltyzing those
'heathen Russians' by bringing Jesus to them!
So lets look at statistics from the Russian Orthodox Church regarding the
increase of Orthodox Church buildings, seminaries, monasteries, etc. and ask
ourselves why the growth has been so rapid since the fall of communism if all
those so called people identify themselves as Orthodox but are really either
non believers or non Church attendees as you imply by the statistics you give.
These statistics can be backed up with physical proof while yours can't.
Then we can further compare it with the number of Roman Catholic churches that
are being closed in the various Roman Catholic Archdioceses throughtout the
U.S. The Boston Archdiocese alone is about to close seventy churches according
to a recent news release.
Not to mention those Roman Catholic seminaries that have closed due to lack of
students.
I think we can honestly go by the assumption that churches are closed when
there are no parishioners around to fill and support them. While new churches
are built and opened to accommodate an increase in attendance.
======
These are the current statistics of the growth and revitalization of the
Orthodox Church in Russia since the fall of communism. Common sense should
tell us that there wouldn't be such a drastic increase in dioceses, churches,
and religious institutions if 70% of the Russians were Orthodox in name only
and had either no interest in religion or church attendance!
--------------
THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH TODAY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Russian Orthodox Church is the largest religious association in our
country. At present it has 128 dioceses in various regions of Russia and in far
and near abroad.
Since 1990 the Russian Church has been led by His holiness Patriarch Alexy II
of Moscow and All Russia,. the 15th patriarch in its history, who governs
together with the Holy Synod.
In the Russian Orthodox Church today there are 128 dioceses (for comparison,
there were 67 diocese in 1989), 19000 parishes (6893 in 1988), and nearly 480
monasteries (18 in 1980). These figures point vividly to an all-round revival
of church life taking place under the primatial leadership of His Holiness
Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia.
The pastoral service is carried out by 150 bishops, 17500 priests and 2300
deacons.
The network of educational Orthodox institutions is directed by the Education
Committee. At present there are 5 theological academies (there were 2 in 1991),
26 seminaries (there were 3 in 1988), and 29 pre-seminaries, which did not
exist at all till the 90s. There are two Orthodox universities, a Theological
Institute, a women's pre-seminary, and 28 icon-painting schools. The total
number of theological students including those of the correspondence
departments is about 6000 people. Educational institutions have been
established to develop religious education among the laity. This important work
is coordinated by the Department for Religious Education and Catechism.
There is a variety of forms in which religious education and catechization of
lay people are carried out, including Sunday schools at churches, circles for
adults, groups for preparing adults for baptism, Orthodox kindergartens,
Orthodox groups in state-run kindergartens, Orthodox gymnasia, schools,
lyceums, and Orthodox courses for teachers of catechism. Sunday school has been
the most popular form of catechism.
In the field of charity the work is carried out on all-church level through the
Department for Church Charity and Social Service.
It is necessary to mention in the first place a number of successfully
functioning medical programs. A special mention should be made of the Moscow
Patriarchate's Central Hospital of St. Alexis the Metropolitan of Moscow. In
the situation where healthcare is becoming commercial, this medical institution
is one of the few clinics in Moscow which provide free medical check-up and
treatment.
A psychiatric service has been set up at the Mental Health Center of the
Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. It gives free help to persons sent by
parishes in the Moscow diocese.
These are only a few examples of concrete work carried out by the
above-mentioned Department.
Bob
Bob Tallick
Lee Malatesta
> > Membership statistics mean nothing.
>
> You respond with -
>
> "That much I agree with."
>
> =========
>
> But then you go on to write a contradiction to the above agreement when you
> state -
>
> My whole point of mentioning Russia where some
> 70% of the population considers itself Orthodox while less than half
> believes that God exists is precisely to point out that membership
> statistics mean nothing.
>
> Where do you get the above statistics from? They sound like they just came
> out
> of an article wriiten by an Evangelical trying to justify proseltyzing those
> 'heathen Russians' by bringing Jesus to them!
The numbers came from different surveys I've seen over the past couple
of years. The fact of the matter is that in Russia if one adds up the
number of people who don't believe in God and the number of people who
are Orthodox, one gets a number that is higher than 100%.
How does this contradict my statement that membership statistics are
meaningless? As far as I can tell it doesn't. All it does is illustrate
one of the reasons *why* membership statistics are meaningless. In
Russia, being Orthodox is similar to being Russian. It is cultural and
ethnic and there is not necessary any correlation between those that
label themselves as Orthodox and those that believe in God.
The same things happen in other countries with other faiths. It is part
of the human condition. It is also one of the reasons that attempting to
argue statistics on the topic is pointless. There is no good way of
determining what "Orthodox" (or "Evangelical" or "Hindi") means in a
fashion that is compatible with accurate statistical sampling. The best
one can hope for is to measure attendence, but that doesn't give us
anything meaningful. How many attend only because it is socially,
politically or economically advantageous? How many attend so as to ease
the pain of grandma or grandpa thinking their grandchildren are
athesists? How many attend for no other reason than it is beautiful? How
many attend because they have seen the true light? There is *no* way of
knowing. And that is why membership statistics, even if accurate, are
meaningless. We have no way of knowing if the statistics reflect what is
people's hearts.
Regards,
Lee
T254
the headquarters of the Uniate Church was moved to Kiev.
Don't you just love the following paragraph -
-------
>By the way, almost all the Ukrainian Orthodox today are Catholics who had
>been forced into the Orthodox Church and for one reason or another remained
>Orthodox.
--------
Typical of the RCC! It is always willing to go back in history only as far as
needed to rewrite it!
Bob
========
http://natcath.org/mainpage/taft.htm
National Catholic Reporter
The Independent Newsweekly
NCRONLINE.ORG
This week's stories | Home Page
Posted: February 6, 2004
Interview with Jesuit Fr. Robert Taft of the Pontifical Oriental Institute
February 4, 2004
By John L. Allen, Jr.
Rome
Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting
Christian Unity, is scheduled to travel to Moscow Feb. 16-20, 2004 for a
meeting with the Patriarch of Moscow, Alexy II. In anticipation of Kasper's
trip, NCR Rome correspondent, John L. Allen Jr. sat down with Jesuit Fr.
Robert Taft of the Pontifical Oriental Institute. Taft, a pioneer in
Eastern liturgical studies and a veteran of East/West dialogues, is one of
the leading experts on Orthodoxy in the Catholic Church. A transcript of
the interview follows.
What’s the argument for erecting a patriarchate for the Greek Catholic
church in Ukraine?
The argument is that when an Eastern church reaches a certain consistency,
unity, size, consolidation and so forth, it’s a normal step. Furthermore,
among the Orthodox it’s often been a normal step taken illegally. For
example, the Bulgarians were under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, who
according to Orthodox practice, imposed upon them a Greek hierarchy, until
the Bulgarians had enough and declared their independence, erecting their
own patriarchate. Constantinople refused to recognize it, until they
finally realized that nothing’s going to change and so they recognized it.
Frankly, my advice to the Ukrainians has always been to do the same thing.
Just declare the patriarchate and get on with it. Do it, of course, only if
you’ve got the bishops unanimously behind it …
Do they?
Yes, I think they do now. The danger is that if there are even two people
who say no, then Rome’s going to say that the bishops are divided and we
can’t recognize it. I told them, take two steps. First, publicly declare
the patriarchate. Second, request Roman recognition, but even if it doesn’t
come, refuse all mail that doesn’t come addressed to the patriarchate.
Don’t just pretend, but really do it. The Secretary of State sends a letter
addressed to the archbishop? We don’t have any archbishop, we’ve got a
patriarch. Send it back unopened, “addressee unknown.”
Why erect it in Kiev rather than L’viv, where the Greek Catholics in the
Ukraine are traditionally concentrated?
You have to understand, and this is something that anyone who knows any
history has to sympathize with, that Kiev, “Kiev and Rus” as they call it,
is the heartland of all Orthodoxy among the East Slavs – Belorussians,
Ukrainians, and the Russians. To ask one of them to renounce Kiev is like
asking the Christians to give Jerusalem over to the Jews, to say we really
don’t have any interest there anymore. It’s ridiculous. …
Furthermore, there was a time when all of Ukraine west of the Dnepr River
was in union with Rome, and the presiding hierarch was in Kiev. It’s not
like there’s never been a Ukrainian Catholic bishop of Kiev, a metropolitan
of Kiev. But, you know, you don’t resolve this on the basis of history.
History is instructive but not normative. …
Kiev in Ukraine is like Paris in France. L’viv, even though it’s a lovely
town, is still a backwater. You’re dealing with a church that has spread
beyond the old Galician boundaries, in other words the Western Ukrainian
boundaries of its existence. In the modern world people spread all over the
place. Even though this is still the heartland, there are Ukrainian Greek
Catholics not only throughout Eastern Ukraine but also across Russia,
Kazakhstan, you name it. These people have a right to be served.
Furthermore, one of the ugly secrets that no one talks about is that it’s
quite possible that the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church is the largest
group of practicing Christians in the country, East or West. I’m talking
about those who go to church. You ask the Orthodox in the Ukraine, “How big
are you?” and they say, “310 parishes.” But ask them “Who goes to
church?”
and they say, “We don’t know.” “Eastern” and “statistics” is an
oxymoron.
One thing that characterizes Ukrainian Ca
tholics is that they go to church, and they practice. Why was the Russian
Orthodox church so upset at losing that area back to the Catholic church?
That’s where their vocations came from, and that’s where their money came
from. Collect a statistic sometime of how many priests who were ordained in
the Russian Orthodox church from the end of World War II until the day
before yesterday came from Western Ukraine. Certainly it would be an
overwhelmingly unbalanced proportion with respect to the size of the
Orthodox population.
By the way, almost all the Ukrainian Orthodox today are Catholics who had
been forced into the Orthodox Church and for one reason or another remained
Orthodox.
Aside from Orthodox sensitivities, is there any argument against erecting a
patriarchate in Ukraine?
Oh, good heavens, no. That is, unless you want to ask the question of what
right Rome has to erect an Eastern patriarchate anyway. Basically, the
scuttlebutt is that the pope said to the Ukrainians, if you can convince
Kasper, it’s okay with me. Kasper of course is going to oppose it, and
should. Kasper has been given the job of building bridges with the
Orthodox, not to dynamite them. I perfectly sympathize. What Kasper’s doing
is not following his own personal tastes and needs. He’s doing his job.
But there’s no intra-Catholic reason to object to the patriarchate?
Are you kidding? We’ve got a patriarchate for the Copts whose total
membership would fit in this room, for God’s sake. Give me a break. Maybe
there shouldn’t be, that’s another question, but there is.
What it is that bothers the Orthodox so much about the idea of a Ukrainian
patriarchate?
What bothers them is the very existence of these churches. They look upon
all of these people as their property that has been won away, coaxed away,
forced away from them. And they’re right. But what they don’t realize is
that you just cannot collapse history the way they do. It’s like going on a
visit to Greece to the beach because you want to get a suntan, and some
jerk points his finger at you as if you fought in the Fourth Crusade. Most
Westerners don’t even know what the hell the Fourth Crusade was, and don’t
need to know. You’re dealing with people who collapse history as if it
happened yesterday. Let me use my classic example of the Anglicans. Does
anybody think that Henry VIII took a plebiscite to see if the Catholics in
England wanted to separate from Rome? No, they got up one morning and found
that they were no longer Catholics. But that’s 500 years ago. It certainly
doesn’t mean that the Catholic church could enter England with an army
today and force all those people back into the fold. The same thing is true in
Ukraine. These people,
the Greek Catholics, have been in the Catholic church since 1596, and want
to remain there. The Orthodox propose, and it’s hard to even take this
seriously, that Eastern Catholics should be given the “free choice” of
joining the Orthodox church or joining the Latin church. That’s like
telling African-Americans in Georgia that because you’re the descendants of
somebody who got dragged there, you can have the “free choice” of living in
Albania or Uganda. Maybe they want to stay where they were born, right in
the good old USA. To call that a “free choice” is a mockery of language.
The Orthodox say that Union of 1596 was dissolved in 1946.
Everybody knows what a comedy that was. Even the secret police who
organized the thing have spilled the beans in print. As everybody knows,
all of the bishops of the Catholic church were arrested, so how can you
have a synod without bishops? The two or three bishops who were there had
been ordained as Orthodox bishops, therefore they were not Catholic
bishops, therefore they could not in any canonical way preside over a
Catholic synod. Everybody knows this.
So what is the real issue for the Orthodox?
They look upon the whole area of Kiev and Rus, which includes what is now
Ukraine as well as Muscovy and the area around Novgarod, those are the
three historic centers, as their heartland. This would be like for the
papacy having somebody come in and take over Italy.
So they’re afraid of a domino effect?
To attempt to apply rational analysis to this is to fail to understand what
the East is. Once you get over on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, the
further you go South or East from anywhere, the worse everything gets,
except the food. Logic gets worse, rationality gets worse, and everything
ultimately winds up in hysteria and emotionalism. It’s futile to try and
reason about this.
So the Catholic church is never going to persuade the Orthodox to accept
the patriarchate?
No, and I don’t think we should even try. To hell with Moscow.
Cardinal Kasper is going to Moscow on Feb. 16, and certainly this issue
will be on the agenda. Is it a fool’s errand?
No, because Kasper is a rational man. You’ve got two levels: the level of
what appears in public declarations and the press, and then the level of
face-to-face contacts with people who can be rational, like Metropolitan
Kirill of Smolensk (the number two official in the Russian Orthodox
hierarchy). He’s a rational, intelligent human being, and he’s not an enemy
of Catholicism. He has to make certain sounds from time to time. You see,
you have to realize that much of what the Russian Orthodox hierarchy does
is because of their own lunatic fringe. It’s a mistake to think the
patriarch and the permanent synod have the kind of control over their
hierarchy and their church that the pope does in the Catholic church. The
patriarch of Moscow is not a pope.
What realistically can Kasper hope to accomplish?
By talking turkey the way he did in his article in Civiltà Cattolica when
the Orthodox complained about the creation of the dioceses in Russia, which
was translated into other languages, he could make some headway. He laid it
right out. There are over 300,000 Catholics in European Russia, 65,000 of
them in Moscow alone. To say that a church doesn’t have a right to erect a
diocese there is absurd, especially when the Orthodox plant metropolitans
wherever they want. Let’s take the example of Austria. Vienna has been a
Catholic see since the first millennium, yet the Russian Orthodox have a
metropolitan, not just “in” Vienna but “of” Vienna … that’s his
title. Yet
there probably aren’t 5,000 Russian Orthodox in the whole of Austria. Fair
is fair. Is Moscow their canonical territory? Yes, but guess whose
canonical territory Vienna is. They come up with the argument, we believe
in the principle of “one bishop, one city.” Want to guess how many Orthodox
bishops there are in New Yo
rk? I mean, for God’s sake. The problem is, nobody talks to them like that
because nobody knows what I know. Catholics hear this stuff and say, “Oh,
gee, aren’t we awful.” Give me a break.
So what can Kasper hope for?
What Kasper can hope for is a renewal of the dialogue. What he needs to do
is to reassure Moscow once again is that the Catholic church regards the
Russian Orthodox church as a sister church, that we are there to take care
of Catholics, not to fish in their pond. We’ve said this a million times.
Kirill has been making some good noises lately. He’s said the dialogue has
never been interrupted, which is true, and that while the official position
of both churches is that we shouldn’t be fishing in one another’s waters,
but there are clergy on both sides who don’t respect those norms. There are
Orthodox clergy who proselytize among Catholics, we know that for a fact.
The Russian Orthodox opened up a parish in Palermo! All the Russians in
Palermo you could fit into a telephone booth. Who’s the priest? He’s a
converted Catholic. When it was opened up, in the journal of the Moscow
patriarchate, it stated quite clearly that this is a step toward recovering
the Byzantine heritage of
Sicily. Furthermore, there’s a Greek monastery in Calabria that’s also
proselytizing among the Catholics. There are loose cannons all over the
place.
So Kasper is not going to persuade the Orthodox. Is his goal to soften the
blow when it comes?
Yes. I think what Kasper needs to do is to tell them that this is probably
going to happen sooner or later, and if you get bent out of shape, that
reaction is going hurt nobody but yourself. Nobody. Do we need them?
Answer, no. Simple as that.
Do you think they know that?
Probably not, because they know that they control the turf in Russia, and
they know there are hundreds of thousands of Catholics in Russia. It’s
extremely difficult for the Orthodox to face up to their own reality. They
don’t really understand the uses of history. For example, there are
hundreds of thousands of Catholics today in Siberia. How come? Because the
Russians dragged them there in cattle cars, that’s how come. Let’s say it
the way it is. Furthermore, before the war, 20 percent of the population of
Siberia was Catholic. Were there Catholics dioceses in Russia before the
revolution wiped them out? Yes, there were. I mean real dioceses, not just
fictitious apostolic administrations. Real dioceses. If there are Catholic
bishops now in regions where there weren’t before the revolution, it’s for
the reason I just gave – these people were dragged to those regions in
cattle cars. The pope didn’t drag them there. Let’s say it the way it is.
They’re incapable of facing real
ity.
There seems to be a predictable pattern of crisis/reconciliation/crisis in
Catholic-Orthodox relations. Are we doomed to keep repeating this cycle?
I think so. In part, because we live in a free world and nobody really
controls all of their own people. If the Neocatechumenate crowd decides to
show up in some Russian city and cause trouble, who’s going to put them
under control? Part of the problem is that this papacy hasn’t controlled
some of these new movements. Matter of fact, it encourages them. It’s not
the Jesuits who are causing trouble in Russia. It’s not the Franciscans.
Part of the problem too is that the Russians are always reacting not so
much to what we do, as to how their own constituency reacts to whatever we
do. Basically, there are three groups in the Russian hierarchy. You’ve got
a real wacko kind of right-wing fringe. These are the ones who would agree
with calling Rasputin a saint and that kind of garbage. Then you’ve got
people like Kirill, who are open and ecumenical and intelligent, because
he’s got an education. Then you’ve got kind of a middle group that’s very
conservative but not frothing at th
e mouth. Kirill’s group is a very small minority. The patriarch is a
juggler trying to keep all these balls in the air.
The post-Vatican II goal of the ecumenical movement was full structural
unity. Is that a pipe dream with the Orthodox?
No, it’s not a pipe dream, but it depends what you mean. The only possible
aim for ecumenism is communion. The old notion that the church begins with
God, then the pope, and on down in pyramidal fashion, is gone. What we’re
dealing with now is sister churches. That’s what we had before the
East/West schism. Does anybody think that Rome had anything to say about
who became patriarch of Constantinople? Or who became the metropolitan of
Nicomedia? Of course not. These guys were bishops there just like we had
bishops here, and when they met they’d say, “You’re a bishop? Hey, I’m
a
bishop too. How’s it going?” They were all in communion. It’s not like
Rome
was telling them what to do.
How do we get communion?
First, let’s be clear that this is all we’re ever going to get.
When will we get it?
I don’t know. Certainly not in my lifetime. I would suspect that it’s going
to take a few more centuries.
Do you agree that the central problem is the papacy?
Of course. What we’ve made out of the papacy is simply ridiculous. There’s
no possible justification in the New Testament or anyplace else for what
we’ve made out of the papacy. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in a
Petrine ministry. I believe that Rome has inherited that Petrine ministry.
But there’s no reason on God’s earth why the pope should be appointing the
bishop of Peoria. None whatsoever. So we really need a devolution, a
decentralization. The Catholic church has become so big that we need some
kind of a synodal structure in the West the same way you have in the East.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops ought to be a kind of
synod of Catholic bishops in the United States. They ought to be able to
elect the bishops. Leave Rome a veto, if you want. By the way, this would
be no guarantee of better bishops. The notion that the locals will
necessarily pick better people than Rome is obviously false, as anybody who
knows the East understands. But at lea
st people will see these guys as their bishops and not Rome’s. Make your
own bed and sleep in it. The pope could say: ‘You don’t like the archbishop
of New York? Hey, I didn’t name him.’
Given all the hassles, is there a case for simply forgetting about dialogue
with the Orthodox?
The Catholic church never calls anybody else a “church” if they don’t
have
an episcopate. In that strict sense of the term, the Russian Orthodox is
the largest church in the world after the Catholic church. To ignore them
would be like the United States’ policy on China for so many years. There
are a billion people over there, and the U.S. tried to pretend they don’t
exist. How stupid can you be? So we’ve got to come to terms with Moscow,
but they also have to come to terms with us. Like it or lump it.
So, tough love is your approach.
Absolutely. That was one of the problems of the Secretariat of Christian
Unity under Willebrands. When the Orthodox would say something outrageous,
they would make remonstrances privately, but never did anything appear in
public. You can’t do it that way. That makes them think they’re getting
away with it. It’s got to be front page, in your face. We shouldn’t have a
Catholic bishop in Moscow? Well, let’s see, there’s a Russian Orthodox
metropolitan in Brussels, to say nothing of Paris, of London. Up to a while
ago, there were three Orthodox bishops in Oxford. All of the Orthodox in
Oxford you could fit into a telephone booth. You’ve got to challenge this
sort of nonsense.
National Catholic Reporter, February 6, 2004
Bob Tallick
Cunneen
>>church. And if they aren't registered, they won't be counted in the annual
>>national census. The numbers therefore actually do reflect the churchgoing
>>population, not their self-classification.
>
>If they weren't registered in the local paish then they wouldn't be buried
>from
>the local parish, would they?
Not necessarily true. We bury just about anyone who asks for a Catholic
burial. We've buried non-Catholics because we were asked by their Catholic
children. We bury people we've never met who live in our parish because their
Catholic relations from outside the parish ask for it. I think they have to be
Christian, but other than that we're pretty flexible. Of course, the vast
majority of our funerals are for Catholics, but a large percentage are not
registered parishioners.
Cunneen
>Church with a funeral Mass. No priest ever bothered to ask if he was a
>registered member of the parish or even a Roman Catholic. The man is bured
>in
>a Roman Catholic parish cemetary!
>
>Besides all of them send their kids to the local parish parochial school.
>Don't they have to be parish members to register for the parish rates?
>
Your first point is my point exactly. You don't have to be a registered member
to be buried in the church or in a Catholic cemetery.
Those who send their children to a Catholic school get a reduced rate if they
are registered AND ACTIVE in the parish. (That means they participate and give
regularly.)
That makes sense: Catholic parochial schools are primarily for the Catholic
children of that parish. Many schools are subsidized by the parish, and the
donations of school families to the church helps to make possible that subsidy.
The school often uses the church facilities, so maintaining the church and
church grounds also assists the school. Those from other parishes (or no
parishes) normally pay more in order to offset the fact that they don't also
give to the local parish.
Registering in the parish JUST in order to get a lower rate, with no intention
of being a member of that parish community is subterfuge. Catholic school
rates are already among the lowest available for private schools; lying to get
a lower rate sets a poor example for the children.
What I have seen in some areas are arrangements between churches to covenant
with the local Catholic school. The other churches (Catholic or otherwise)
work out a special arrangement with the Catholic parish and/or the Catholic
school. It could be monetary: for $x from the other church, the Catholic
school will allow y children from that church to attend. It can be some form
of mutual service: the other church will provide lunch monitors or trip
chaperones or some other service to assist the school. There's a lot of
creativity that I've heard about.
Of course, if the Catholic school is already overcrowded and has a long waiting
list, it will probably be harder to cut a deal. On the other hand, some
schools have trouble keeping their numbers up, and they would be more than
willing to talk.
Cunneen
>there are no parishioners around to fill and support them. While new
>churches
>are built and opened to accommodate an increase in attendance.
No, there can be other reasons why churches are closed and new churches are
opened. In the case of Boston, urban churches built 100 years ago often were
small, had no parking lots, and are now in areas that are largely commercial
rather than residential. Newer suburban churches normally are bigger, have
decent size parking lots and are close to where people NOW live. It's a SHIFT
in population, rather than a decrease in population that necessitates the
closings.
In Russia, the destruction of churches under the Communists left even the
remnant of the faithful with inadequate space to worship. They are currently
building back to the level that once existed a century ago.
Cunneen
>one of the reasons *why* membership statistics are meaningless. In
>Russia, being Orthodox is similar to being Russian. It is cultural and
>ethnic and there is not necessary any correlation between those that
>label themselves as Orthodox and those that believe in God.
Those membership statistics are meaningless because they aren't membership
statistics. Membership must be measured by attendance; to be Orthodox is to be
part of a worshipping community. If you can't be bothered to worship, then
your Orthodoxy is cultural, not transformational.
The same thing goes with Catholic and Orthodox statistics in this country. The
only ones that mean anything are those based on attendance and contributions.
You add up your stewardship; you count noses on Christmas or Pascha; those are
the only meaningful measures of membership.
Cunneen
>>been forced into the Orthodox Church and for one reason or another remained
>>Orthodox.
>
>--------
>
>Typical of the RCC! It is always willing to go back in history only as far
>as
>needed to rewrite it!
>
Whenever Ukraine was under Poland, they were Catholic. Whenever Ukraine was
under Russia, they were Orthodox. If you go back any further in history, they
were under Constantinople. And before that the west was Roman and the east was
Jewish (the Khazars). And before that....
How far back did you want to go???
john j
The basis for this assertion could be the 1946 suppression of the
Ukrainian Catholic church .Which was carried out by Stalin with the help
of the ROC . Since the UCC was suppressed its priests and bishops put
in concentration camps. Most of the faithful were forcefully absorbed
into the ROC. When the Communists fell the UCC faithful had a
choice to remain in the Quisling ROC or restore their church
and their Communion with Rome. They voted with their feet and started
restoring their church. There are now 7 million Ukrainian Greek
Catholics in the Ukraine ,in full communion with Rome .
T254
>Catholics in the Ukraine ,in full communion with Rome
And all are threatening to turn their backs on Rome if the Pope doesn't give
them a Patriarchate! So much for their loyalty and committment to Rome and its
authority!
And, where did you get the SEVEN MILLION figure? Last I heard it was FIVE
MILLION.
>They voted with their feet and started
>restoring their church.
And these same feet are now threatening to run from Rome !
Bob Tallick
T254
How about to the beginning as you do with any novel or history book? You know
where St Vladimir's envoys rejected Rome for Constantinople! And then take it
for the next 600 years up until the Polish take over and the forced conversion
to try and reclaim some freedom and basic human rights from a hostile Roman
Catholic governmet that denied them such in their own lands.
Bob Tallick
T254
>building back to the level that once existed a century ago.
Of course! And they wouldn't be building them if there were no people to fill
them, now would they?
Bob Tallick
Lee Malatesta
> >All it does is illustrate
> >one of the reasons *why* membership statistics are meaningless. In
> >Russia, being Orthodox is similar to being Russian. It is cultural and
> >ethnic and there is not necessary any correlation between those that
> >label themselves as Orthodox and those that believe in God.
>
> Those membership statistics are meaningless because they aren't membership
> statistics. Membership must be measured by attendance; to be Orthodox is to
> be part of a worshipping community. If you can't be bothered to worship, then
> your Orthodoxy is cultural, not transformational.
I don't understand your response. The question was about the estimated
1/5 of Church goers that consider themselves to be non-religious. These
are people that do worship regularly, they just don't believe any of it.
Also, I reject your statement that only those that regularly worship
within the community should be counted.
First, as a matter of practicality. A good example would be groups of
people left behind in the inner-city USA when old parishes relocate to
the suburbs and leave those without transportation behind. I know about
a dozen or so people that went from being Roman Catholic to being
Protestant when the archdiocese sold a building to the Vineyard
association of Churches. Once there was no longer a practicing Catholic
parish in the neighborhood, the choice for many was walking several
miles to the nearest Roman Catholic Church or to attend a Protestant
service.
Second, as matter of theology, not counting those who have been baptized
and have not renounced their baptism makes something of a mockery of the
sacrament.
> The same thing goes with Catholic and Orthodox statistics in this country.
> The only ones that mean anything are those based on attendance and contributions.
> You add up your stewardship; you count noses on Christmas or Pascha; those
> are the only meaningful measures of membership.
If those are the only meaningful membership numbers, then there are no
meaningful membership except in the sense that those numbers are useful
for the parish treasurer to make a budget.
Regards,
Lee
The Black Monk
This was in the Moscow Times. Apparently, 1 in 18 Russian "Orthodox"
don't believe in God.
Witches Beat Out Angels In U.S., Russian Surveys
By Kevin O'Flynn
Staff Writer Russians are much less likely to believe in angels than
Americans but more convinced that witches exist, a new survey
indicates.
Two months after a U.S. survey found that 90 percent of Americans
believe in God and 85 percent in angels, leading independent pollster
VTsIOM-A released a poll showing huge differences on the two
countries' spiritual plains.
Some 73 percent of Russians believe in God and 53 percent in angels,
according to the poll of 1,600 Russians across the country.
At the same time, many Russians show a tendency for more esoteric
beliefs, as in witches (38 percent compared to 24 percent), astrology
(42 percent to 29 percent), reincarnation (26 percent to 25 percent)
and unidentified flying objects (tied at 34 percent). Or, as Izvestia
said in a headline in Monday's paper, "Our Witches Are Better Than
American Ones."
Senior VTsIOM-A researcher Boris Dubin said the results indicate that
people who consider themselves Orthodox Christians have a number of
pagan beliefs. He noted that although surveys regularly suggest that
about 61 percent of the population call themselves Orthodox, the
number of believers who attend church regularly is much smaller,
closer to 5 percent to 8 percent.
"They don't have anything to do with the church," he said. "They're
linked to it like an institution."
One out of every 18 respondents who called himself Orthodox in the new
poll also said he did not believe in God.
"Interest in religion has been growing, but more people tend to have a
general belief in the supernatural than in specific denominations,"
said Philip Walters, head of research at the Keston Institute in
Oxford, England, which monitors the study of religious affairs in
communist and post-communist countries.
"The general atmosphere is conducive" to the belief in things from
UFOs to witches, he said.
While some U.S. news reports linked Americans' belief in angels to the
media's depiction of angels in television series such as "Highway to
Heaven" and the "Michael" and "Charlie's Angels" films, Dubin said he
saw the belief in witches as a reflection of a growing interest in the
occult.
"There is such a culture in newspapers and sometimes on television,"
he said.
Nika Ryazina of the St. John the Apostle Orthodox University in Moscow
said the results are nothing more than an indication of what happens
when a country suppresses religious liberty for decades.
Those who believe in astrology or UFOs probably "became Orthodox not
that long ago," she said.
Ryazina said a belief in witches, devils and ghosts is not
incompatible with the Orthodox religion -- troubled souls who have not
made it to heaven or hell could be seen as ghosts.
As for UFOs, "it wasn't without reason that we watched 'The X-Files'
for a number of years," Izvestia said.
--------
BM
Anthony
Where did you get the 2 million figure for the OCA? They have at most
10% of that number.
In Christ,
Anthony
cun...@aol.com (Cunneen) wrote in message news:<20040203160222...@mb-m11.aol.com>...
> Al,
>
> Why do these surveys give number of churches, and not number of members???
> Lots of small churches may not have nearly the same number of members as a
> smaller number of large ones.
>
> In the US, the Greek Orthodox and the OCA have about 600 churches each, and
> around 2 million each in membership. The Episcopal Church has over 7,000
> churches... and a membership of about 2 million.
>
> Comparing the number of churches doesn't say much, unless the churches are
> equally big and equally full.
Anthony
parishes, but haven't gone to Mass for years. Parishes don't drop
people from their lists because of no shows.
In Christ,
Anthony
cun...@aol.com (Cunneen) wrote in message news:<20040206213814...@mb-m20.aol.com>...
Anthony
In Christ,
Anthony
JOH...@webtv.net (john j) wrote in message news:<15692-40...@storefull-3136.bay.webtv.net>...
Anthony
wrote is completely off the wall. Since you hate Rome anyway, why
should any perceived disobedience on their part bother you, Orthoman.
t2...@aol.com (T254) wrote in message news:<20040209115017...@mb-m24.aol.com>...
T254
>wrote is completely off the wall.
Read Fr Tafts interview at
http://natcath.org/mainpage/taft.htm
Bob Tallick
Cunneen
No doubt they are a pretty independent group. Notice how for all their
threats, Rome has taken no action to "discipline" them.
So those of you who make great noise about Roman tyranny and Rome's domineering
tactics; Rome is acting according to the wishes of the EP and taking a chance
at losing the GCs.
Compared to Alexei and Bart, WHO'S the domineering tyrant???
T254
>don't believe in God.
And how would this be different from 'Roman Catholics' or Protestants in
western europe? Especially places like France and England?
Bob
Bob Tallick
T254
No I don't. But I also know enough about history to know that the creation of
the UGCC in 1596 paralled and surpassed its supression in 1946. So I would
like to know how you can remain silent regarding its creation while crying
about its suppression.
=====
Try 'The Orthodox Church In The History of Russia' by Dimitry Pospielovsky
Page 92-93 regarding the union -
{Note: This section deals with a second memorandum sent to the Pope on their
conditions for submission to the Pope. The first memorandum which consists of
ten conditions was rejected by the pope. Rome ignored all these conditions,
promising only that the metropolitan of Kiev would have full contol over the
ancient Kiev Monastery of the Caves. The bishops responded by by drafting a
"Concilliar Address" to the pope, consisting of twenty six articles, which were
delivered by the two bishops sent to Rome, Ipati-Potii of Vladimir-Volynsk, and
Krill (Terletsky of Lutsk. The articles included both a confession of faith
and a number of requests -
1. The Holy spirit proceds from the Father THROUGH the Son
2. All orthodox liturgies and other rites should remain unchanged
3. The Eurcharist is to continue to be distributed under both species,
according to Orthodox tradition
4. No objection to purgatory, "but we want to be true to the teachings of the
Church." The new calendar can be accepted but the Paschal cycle should remain
untouched, as well as those Orthodox feasts which are absent from the Roman
Church, e.g., Epiphany
6. The rentention of married clergy
7. That only Russians or Greeks may be consecrated bishops (This reflects the
fear that Poles might try and infiltrate the Church and gradually latinize and
polonize it).
8 & 9: (Identical to the 8 &9 in the previous memo whic dealt with equal
rights & privleges with the Latin Rite Bishops ).
11. No Greek bishops to be allowed in the commonwealth's territory, and none
of their bans are to be valid in the Commonwealth.
12 & 20: Defections to the Roman rite and transformation of Eastern churches
ito Latin-rite ones is forbidden
21. Colleges and brotherhoods, should they join the Unia, are to be subject to
the bishops.
26. "Some of ours" have gone to Greece to report [on us] in order to be
appointed to posts "superior to ours". Let the King of Poland prevent their
re-entry into his domains.
[Caps are mine]
Uniate historians have claimed that this document had a theological character.
But the only theology here relates to the FILLIOQUE and Purgatory, and on both
issues the Bishops meekly agree to accept whatever the pope decides. Yet even
this petition did not receive a proper response from the Vatican. After vainly
waiting for it in Rome, the bishops were simply brought before the pope, were
handed the Latin texts of the Latin episcopal oath, which they were made to
pronounce WHILE KNEELING BEFORE THE POPE.
Then, after receiting the Creed WITH THE FILLIOQUE, they were reconsecrated by
the pope AS ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS pure and simple. The confession of faith
included in the oath AFFIRMED THAT ONLY THE ROMAN CHURCH POSSESSED THE FULLNESS
OF TRUTH, AND THAT THEY ACCEPT ALL THE TRADITIONS, RITES, AND SACRAMENTS OF THE
ROMAN CHURCH. Only a month later, in January 1596, the pope magnanimously
handed the bishops a short statute for the Uniate Church, permitting it to
retain those of their traditions and rites WHICH DID NOT CONTRADICT THE
TEACHINGS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. ALL THE OTHER DEMANDS MADE IN THE TWO
MEMORANDA - SUCH AS AUTOMONY, THE ELECTION OF BISHOPS, ETC. - WERE TOTALLY
IGNORED BY THE POPE. Ipati and Krill then returned to the Commonwealth as
bishops of the eastern rite, but with no guarantee that that rite would be
respected or retained.
In fact, the laity, the parish clergy, and particularly the brotherhoods
refused to accept the union with Rome. The protest movement developed and
spread quickly, joined at first by a single bishop, Gideon (Boloban) of Livov.
The King gave in to these pressures and authorized the convening of a local
council OF THOSE BISHOPS, CLERGY, AND LAITY OF THE ROMAN AND GREEK CHURCH WHO
ACCEPTED THE PAPACY - i.e., THOSE WHO DID NOT ACCEPT THE COUNCIL WERE NOT
INVITED.
The council met in the city of Brest on October 6, 1596. In order to prevent a
parallel Orthodox council in any of the numerious Orthodox churches in the
city, THE METROPOLITAN OF KIEV SEALED ALL ORTHODOX CHURCHES ON THE DAY BEFORE
THE COUNCIL WAS TO BEGIN, EXCEPT FOR THE CATHEDRAL WHERE THE COUNCIL WAS TO
TAKE PLACE. The Orthodox, nevertheless, converged on Brest as well, with
Prince Ostrozhskii and his private army at the head. Failing to find an open
church, and after waiting in vain for an invitation from the Uniates, they
accepted an offer of a Protestant church school hall for a separate Orthodox
Council. The Uniate Council passed a resolution excommunicating all the
Orthodox clergy and laity participating in the Orthodox Council. The Orthodox
in turn suspended all the clergy and lay participants in the Uniate Council and
addressed a petition to the King, asking him to deprive "the traitors" of
their dioceses and parishes. But the King decided otherwise: his edict of
October 15 legalized only those Byzantine-rite Christians who joined the Unia;
IT DECREED THE ORTHODOX CHURCH NULL AND VOID AND ALL IT'S CLERGY EXCOMMUNCATED;
WHILE CONTINUING MEMBERSHIP IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH WAS DECLARED TO BE AN ACT OF
TREASON AGAINST THE STATE.
=======
So Anthony, tell me how you can justify the above part of history and and
condemn what happened in 1946.
Also I know that Stalin was a Georgian, not a Russian.
Bob Tallick
Lee Malatesta
demos...@msn.com (Anthony) wrote:
> Cunneen,
>
> Where did you get the 2 million figure for the OCA? They have at most
> 10% of that number.
The OCA doesn't even claim 2 million. The offical OCA spokesperson
Father John Matusiak claims 750,000 Orthodox Christians in the OCA. The
study financed by Hartford Seminary done by Alexei D. Krindatch of the
Moscow Geophysicial Institute that came out some time ago reports
115,000.
A good summary can be found in the May 8, 2002 issue of the Christian
Century:
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1058/10_119/87209469/print.jhtml
The results of the Krindatch study can be found at the Hartford Seminary
website.
http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/krindatch.pdf
It seems to me that both numbers have flaws.
Regards,
Lee
Lee Malatesta
It isn't which is one of the reasons why playing the numbers game is an
exercise in futility.
T254
>threats, Rome has taken no action to "discipline" them.
That's only because Rome realizes they are backed in a corner. If they do
decide to disciple them they will not only lose them but jeprodize any further
dialogue with the Orthodox.
The only thing they can do is let these crazy Ukrainians do what they want. In
this case their silence will be preceived as consent Rome knows it.
It has nothing to do with Rome's tyranny or lack of. Its has everything to do
with common sense and praticality.
Bob Tallick
T254
>
>exercise in futility.
My point exactly!
Bob Tallick
john j
It has been and is the official policy of this pope to expand the
autonomy of all the Eastern Rites and to remove as many Latinizations as
possible.
Rome may not call him a patriarch ,but. Who will care, he already has
the authority of one.
Cunneen
>>threats, Rome has taken no action to "discipline" them.
>
>That's only because Rome realizes they are backed in a corner. If they do
>decide to disciple them they will not only lose them but jeprodize any
>further
>dialogue with the Orthodox.
>
But disciplining the GCs was EXACTLY what the Russian church not too long ago
was demanding! Make up your minds, boys.
leonidas
Aah, I see you've already beaten me to it. :-)
Regards,
Leonidas
Cunneen
>of
>the UGCC in 1596 paralled and surpassed its supression in 1946. So I would
>like to know how you can remain silent regarding its creation while crying
>about its suppression.
Ancient memory is always selective. We can always play the victim game with
ancient history. We've got Justinian's rape of Italy, the martyrdom of pope
Martin, the massacre of the Westerners in Constantinople, and any number of
other atrocities that we could use to stoke the fires of anger and hatred, just
as the Orthodox do with their list. AgitProp is an ancient curse.
1596 is ancient history. 1946 isn't. There are people alive whose memories
include the suppression. There are Orthodox alive who acted in complicity with
the monster. Just like the Ustasi, we are talking about people who were hurt
and killed because of their beliefs. Isn't it about time we said, "Never
again" and got on with building family instead of walls?
The Black Monk
(incidentally, the Polish government relegalized the Orthodox Church
within a couple of decades; the same was not true with respect to
Uniates of the Soviet government)
> So Anthony, tell me how you can justify the above part of history and and
> condemn what happened in 1946.
You are absolutely correct. Just as correctly, how can some people
justify what happened in 1946 and condemn what happened in 1596? Both
acts were reprehensible, in much the same way. And unfortunately the
descendents of the victims of 1596 wer victimized in 1946.
regards,
BM
john j
The Massacres by the Russians in the 30's the suppression of the
Catholic church in the 40's all standout in Ukrainian minds. Now we have
4 Major Christian churches in the new Ukraine the Catholics, 2
dissident Orthodox and the Russian Orthodox church in the Ukraine.
The Catholics and the dissidents support the freedom and
independence of the Ukraine ,the Russian one is a branch of the one
that helped Stalin . So now it is opposing an attempt by the Catholics
to become even more Ukrainian .How much do you think the Ukrainian
Catholics care what the ROC thinks?
T254
>Catholics care what the ROC thinks?
Probably about as much as they care about what the Pope thinks!
Bob Tallick