 |
 |
||||||||||||
|
Dr
Andrew Kania... |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
INTERNATIONAL EXCLUSIVE TO CATHOLICA AUSTRALIA: A long-running and complex diplomatic, ecumenical, political tension between three major churches, the Russian Orthodox, the Latin Church and the Ukrainian Catholic Church has been building to new heights in recent weeks. Cardinal Walter Kaspar has been involved in a high level initiative in Moscow seeking to reopen talks with the Russian Orthodox Church which had become stalled under the late Pope John Paul II. Meanwhile a Synod of Bishops of Eastern Catholic Churches is underway in Kyiv (Kiev) at the moment. Cardinal Kaspar's remarks at a Theology seminar at Oxford University a few week's ago appear to have caused deep offense to Ukrainian Catholics who have long been seeking Rome's support for the establishment of a Ukrainian Patriarchy. Rome had been in favour of correcting this historical anomaly under Pope Benedict's predecessor but the final steps of the process were seemingly cut short by the death of Pope John Paul II. Under Cardinal Kaspar and Pope Benedict, the Ukrainian Catholics feel they have been relegated to a class of second-class Catholics in Rome's impatience to reach some rapprochement and healing of the relationship with Moscow. Much is at stake in this diplomatic game of brinksmanship. Rome has gone cold on the idea of a Ukrainian Patriarchy seemingly in favour of the diplomatic overtures to the Russian Orthodox Church. As reported in some conservative Catholic news agencies yesterday, there are initiatives underway for the Ukrainian Catholics to form a joint Patriarchy with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Dr Andrew Kania is a respected lay member of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Australia and at the international level is a widely published writer seeking to bring greater understanding of the perspectives of Eastern Catholics in the Western lung of Catholicism. In his present position at Oxford University Dr Kania has been close to some of the unfolding events in recent weeks and provides this detailed understanding of what is unfolding written from the perspective of Ukrainian Catholics and their spiritual leaders in Kiev. Some background history to these contentious matters… Despite years of harsh suffering under the oppressive pall of atheistic communism — Ukraine is still, by a great act of Providence, a Christian nation, the Church rising from out of the fires of persecution like the mythical phoenix. Her songs, her literature, her exquisite embroidery, her icons, her famous Easter eggs, express a Christian heritage so deep and so profound, that even Lenin and Stalin, could not succeed in erasing the shadow of the Cross, that extends from high up in the Carpathian Mountains in the West, then across the fertile steppes that constitute her heartland, and through to the Don Basin in the East. 
Kyiv (Kiev), the Ukrainian capital, is a holy city, a city that has enjoyed such a title since the first of the Apostles, Saint Andrew, preached to her inhabitants while standing on the hills, overlooking the then wooded vista, that in time would become covered by a forest of golden onion-domed churches and cathedrals. The famous triple-bar cross (with the footrest placed on a diagonal) rose from a legend derived from the Apostle's teaching in Kyiv, when, it is claimed, St. Andrew to assist his pagan audience to understand the Gospel message, taught that the first bar of the Cross, signified that Christ was not only King of the Jews, but also the King of all nations; that the second bar, symbolized the purpose of Christ's death and resurrection; and that the third bar slanting down from right to left, symbolized that those who believe, as did the penitent thief, Dysmas, will rise up to heaven, and those who do not believe will descend into hell. In fact one of the greatest arguments for the establishment of Kyiv as a Patriarchal city, is that in some respects it may even predate Rome in being a geographic location for Apostolic preaching. It was also in the area known today as Ukraine that two brothers, who would become known as the Apostles to the Slavs, Saints Cyril and Methodius conducted their early missions to the Khazars. Born in Thessalonika in the ninth century, Cyril and Methodius, spread the Gospel to the banks of the Dnieper, as well as down to the Crimea. It is from their missionary work that the Cyrillic alphabet used in Eastern Europe today derives its name, for they created the characters by which the language of the Slavs could be written down. History also tells us that the holy labours of Cyril and Methodius were often threatened, circumvented and oppressed. We see in one instance how the Bishop of Passau, refused a request by Cyril and Methodius to ordain more priests for their missionary work, and at a later stage we read of how Methodius was in 870 dragged before a synod of German bishops and then left in a cell. In yet another instance we witness how an unscrupulous German priest, Wiching, forged documents from Rome — taking it on himself to unpick all the fabric of Methodius' mission to Moravia. Such was the torment placed on Methodius, (who outlived his brother by 15 years) by German prelates and clerics, that the full impact of his missionary work was, severely hindered, but not before he had completed a valuable translation of the Bible into Slavonic for the peoples of Eastern Europe to be evangelized. Ironically, as we begin the 21st Century, it would seem that the German predilection for becoming involved in matters ecclesiastical and with an Eastern flavour, is in the process of repeating itself. The heart of the present dispute…
On the of 5th of May, 2008, the German theologian, Cardinal Walter Kaspar having been invited by the University of Oxford's four Catholic Halls, delivered the inaugural John Henry Newman Lecture, entitled: "The Timeliness of Speaking About God". Nothing was said in this address that a Catholic would take umbrage with or even be slightly surprised at hearing. Kaspar spoke well on the necessity of God in a world influenced by fundamentalist atheism. However, that Kaspar's lecture caused no offence, cannot be said with regard his comments earlier on the same day at a seminar organized by the Faculty of Theology at the University and held at Christ Church. Cardinal Kaspar when asked of his opinion at the seminar, on the plans of the Ukrainian Catholic Church to establish a Patriarchate in Kyiv, responded in words that would sadden not only the majority of Ukrainian Catholics, but would also embarrass many Catholics of the West. According to Kaspar, the major problem that he envisaged for the Vatican recognizing Patriarchal status for Kyiv and the Ukrainian Catholic Church, is in the effect that this would have on the process of 'ecumenical relations' with Moscow and the Russian Orthodox Church. Kaspar concluded his response to the question by saying that the present Pope, takes the same stand as he does on the issue. Kaspar dismissed the notion of a joint Ukrainian Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox patriarchate, currently being discussed in Kyiv, as untenable. In addition to these comments the German Cardinal spoke of the need for there to be liturgical reforms in the East, as, he perceived the Liturgy to be overly lengthy, as well as the need for the East to have an Enlightenment similar to the West, to solve the problems of superstition in Eastern Christendom. Evidently Kaspar, a renowned ecumenist was only too willing to insult Eastern Christians perhaps believing that he was speaking to what would certainly be a uniformly Western Catholic/Anglican audience. Moreover when asked privately later about his specific arguments as to his strong stance regarding the establishment of a Patriarchate in Kyiv, Cardinal Kaspar, gruffly replied: "There should not be!", and then without a further parting word, turned his back on the theologian who had asked the question. For all his expertise and education, Cardinal Kaspar's opinions regarding a Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate, would seem to reveal an ecumenical perspective, based on the querulous principle that the 'ends justify the means'. Evidently Kaspar seeks to court the Russian Orthodox in the hope that he will eventually win for the Vatican a long-sort-after prize. In so doing the German Cardinal appears only too willing to publicly leap-frog the Kyivan Church, and in the process ignore the thousands of clerics and millions of laity who gave their lives for loyalty to Rome, not only in the era of Soviet Communism, but since the Union of Brest in 1596. Kaspar's dismissal of the proposal made by senior Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox clerics and academics that both lungs of the Kyivan Church can come to a union under a single Patriarch in Kyiv, is as culturally insensitive as it is historically inept — considering that both the Ukrainian Orthodox and Ukrainian Catholics were the victims of Russian persecution in the 20th Century, and that both Churches have far more in common with each other, historically, ethnically and liturgically than they do with any other Church community in the world. It must be remembered that the reasons for murdering the Ukrainian Orthodox Metropolitan, Vasyl Lypkivsky and many of his priests, were not dissimilar to the rationale behind the liquidation of the clergy of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, by the Soviets, in that both these Ukrainian Churches were dealt with far more harshly than many other Churches in the Communist East.
The Vatican's hesitancy with regard recognizing a Ukrainian Patriarchate in Kyiv, in order to appease Moscow, (if that is what Kaspar would have us believe), is analogous to a similar reticence of western nations to recognize the right of Tibet to exist in the hope of striking up a free trade agreement with China — a matter of sheer expediency. Perhaps a return now to the annals of history will make the flaws in Cardinal Kaspar's ecumenical gambits more apparent. Understanding the history that leads to the depths of feeling on the part of the Ukrainian churches in these matters… The ramifications of St. Volodymyr, baptizing Kyiv-Rus' according to the Byzantine Rite, were particularly felt after Cerularius, the Patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated by Cardinal Humbert in 1054. This impetuous action by Humbert, caused a domino effect in the East, with Christian rulers siding with the slighted Patriarch of Contantinople. Whether the Church of Kyiv-Rus' ever officially went into schism is debatable, for we read of Iaroslav the Wise's daughters happily entering marital unions in the West; as well as Prince Danlil of Kyiv-Rus' and Halych, accepting a crown from the Roman Pontiff. Yet by the 14th Century we also hear of the Patriarch of Constantinople granting to Kyiv a new Metropolitan so as to compensate for the transference of the previous See (by force), to Vladimir. This action by the Patriarch of Constantinople is of great import, for it clearly highlights that Constantinople understood Kyiv and Moscow to be two separate Christian communities; each independent of one another. If Constantinople had thought that Kyiv was the ecclesiastical vassal of Vladimir, then there would have been no need to have established a new Metropolitanate in Kyiv. Thus in due course, at the close of the 16th Century, when discussions were being held between the Church of Rome and the Church of Kyiv, with regard a formal Union, the Kyivan Metropolitan was as free to enter into negotiations with Rome, as Rome Herself was free. In fact that this was the perception of the signatories of the Union of Brest is quite clear from the final Article that comprises the treaty: "We have heard that some have departed for Greece to procure ecclesiastical powers and return here to advise and influence the clergy and extend their jurisdiction over us. We, therefore, request the King's Grace to order precautions to be taken on the state borders so that anyone bearing such jurisdictions and excommunications be barred from entering the kingdom. Otherwise, grave misunderstandings could arise between the pastors and the flocks of the Church." It is obvious from the tone of this article that the hierarchy of the Kyivan Church would accept no authority over the Kyivan Church, than their own, and of course the right of the Holy Father to be the Shepherd over the Universal Church. Rome for Her part, must have also accepted that the Church of Kyiv was an autonomous Church who did not need permission from a higher authority, be that authority Moscow or Constantinople, to enter into the agreement of the Union of Brest. If Rome had had misapprehensions, these misapprehensions would have made the Union, null and void. Thus the Church of Kyiv entered the Union of Brest, in everything, but name, as a Patriarchal Church; by not seeking the permission of the Patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople, and by being accepted into Union by the Patriarch of the West – the Church of Kyiv claimed for Herself, and was recognized, perhaps inadvertently by Rome – as a Patriarchal Church. Yet according to some scholars in Moscow, that the Kyivan Church entered into the Union of Brest was an unlawful act as they believe that the Moscow Patriarchate has an ecclesiastical authority over the Church of Kyiv, an authority that derives from Moscow being the true heirs of the spiritual and political legacy of Kyiv. If this was indeed the case, how does Moscow argue against the presence in Kyiv of a Constantinople-appointed Metropolitan, whose status was equivalent to that of Moscow? If Moscow disputes this appointment by Constantinople, they must in turn also dispute the authority of Constantinople to eventually grant to Moscow, Patriarchal status. Moreover, if Rome today, as evidently Kaspar suggests, disputes the status of Kyiv as a Patriarchal city on the basis that they, Rome, refer to the rights of Moscow over Kyiv, then they in effect must also admit that the Union of Brest was unlawful, for it was concluded without the express permission of Moscow. Conversely, if Rome admits that the Union of Brest was a lawful, binding document, then they must also admit that the Church of Kyiv had the competence by which to enter into such a union, and as such was independent of the then newly established Moscow Patriarchate, and to be able to do this, Kyiv being the Mother Church of the Slavic East, must be a Patriarchal Church, if anything with historical precedence over Moscow. The issue of a Ukrainian Patriachate… The historical outline now being said, the extended rationale behind the proposal of the Ukrainian Catholic Church to establish a Kyivan Patriarchate is as follows: First, the Ukrainian Church is the largest of the Eastern Churches in union with Rome, and as such warrants by sheer size her place among the other particular Churches as a Patriarchal sister Church; Second, Kyiv was that geographic point where St. Andrew the Apostle preached, and from where Christianity spread further East; Third, the recognition of Patriarchal status within the Eastern Churches is a normal part of the genetic development of Churches in the Christian East, and has only in the case of Kyiv, been a matter for conjecture, because of the political and religious persecution that has taken place by Russia over Ukraine, over a number of centuries;
Fourth, with regard the process of the establishment of a Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate in Kyiv, perhaps the words issued on the 6th of September, 2004, by Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, current leader of the Ukrainian Catholic Church are now best referred to: "We were grieved by the reaction of the Orthodox Churches, who took a clearly non-peaceful position and made it known to the Holy Father through the Moscow Patriarchate without learning about our history and our current situation or our spiritual needs. However, the establishment of our patriarchate is by no means designed to be a threat or intrigue against the Orthodox Churches and does not infringe their rights in anything. The UGCC (whether as a patriarchate or not) has no claims against the Orthodox. In the same way, the Orthodox cannot have claims against Greek Catholics regarding the territory, system and way of life, either. When ecclesial values are at issue, there should be no room for secular categories, because ecclesial values cannot become subjects of discussions." "At the end of the 16th century, the Kyivan Church chose its own special way to ensure unity in the Universal Church. Part of our nation rejected that way at that time and thereby caused the division of the Kyivan Church. However, the part which is today called the Greek Catholic Church became enriched and benefited from taking that way, because it was able to preserve its faith and originality in critical moments of its existence. Of course, there are both light and dark pages in the history of our Church. However, we Greek Catholics have no wish to impose upon anyone our solutions as the only possible and right ones. Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky confirmed this in his correspondence dialogue with Orthodox brethren in the early 1940s. But the goal spoken about by Metropolitans Petro Mohyla and Mykhailo Rohoza (they sought the way to unity in a common patriarchate) was the same, namely, to restore the initial unity of the time of Volodymyr the Great. Today, in the 21 st century, our patriarchate is designed not to be an obstacle but to be the path to the situation in which Ukraine has one patriarch in St. Sophia's Cathedral in Kyiv." "Would the establishment of the Greek Catholic Patriarchate mean an increase of hatred for non-Ukrainians, as some maintain? No, because a patriarchate, where Christian virtues are fostered, cannot indulge in chauvinism. Christian patriotism, however, is a virtue. It is normal to wish one's nation well; it is seeking such well-being at the expense of other nations that is a violation of the Christian norm. We sincerely expect that life under the patriarchal system, if treated with respect by all neighbors, can only lead to establishment of agreement in our part of the world. But, probably the most paradoxical of the challenges issued by those opposing our patriarchate is the statement that its establishment is designed to be 'an escape from Rome'. Such a challenge is a complete negation of our faith. There is no doubt that, when our Church achieves the patriarchate, the character of relations with certain Roman institutions will change, as the laws require. But these changes will concern only the secondary, administrative sphere. The main feature of each particular Catholic Church is communion with the successor of St. Peter the Apostle, the bishop of Rome, and we will never disown that." The possible re-union of the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches… Mention has been made earlier in this article of the increasing desire of both Ukrainian Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox, to establish a joint Patriarchate in Kyiv. Such an initiative would return the Church of Kyiv to its original unified status. Perhaps such a harmony has already been prophetically pre-empted in the very construction of the National Hymn of Ukraine, "Shche ne vmerla Ukraina". In 1876, the Russian Tsar, Alexander the Second, issued an edict, Ems Ukaz, in which he specifically banned the development of the Ukrainian language and culture. Persecuted as part of this ethnic-cleansing was the Ukrainian Orthodox author Pavlo Chubynsky (1839-1884). Chubynsky would in due course be sent to Siberia, on the charge of 'negatively influencing the minds of the peasants' by encouraging them to learn and speak Ukrainian. Chubynsky was to die physically broken, but not before writing a text that would become the lyrics for the Ukrainian anthem. Chubynsky wrote: "Ukraine has not perished, neither her glory, nor freedom,/ Upon us, fellow--Ukrainians, fate shall smile once more./ Our enemies will vanish, like dew in the morning sun,/ And we too shall rule, brothers, in a free land of our own." Chubynsky's fervent words may have been left on some dusty shelf, had it not been for a Ukrainian Catholic priest, Mykhailo Verbitsky (1815-1870), who, inspired by Chubynsky's fervour, placed the text to music. The final product, is a hymn written jointly by a Ukrainian Catholic and a Ukrainian Orthodox, a song that speaks of a harmony from the Syan River to the very Eastern perimeters of the Don River and then down to the Black Sea. The song calls for a unity, a harmony.
History repeating itself… Cardinal Kaspar, the German ecumenist seems as deaf and blind to both the history and the aspirations of the Ukrainian Church, as he does ambivalent to the awesome traditions of the East. His references to the 'superstitions' of the East, and the liturgical reforms that need to be implemented, refer as much to the Church in Moscow as it does to the Church of Kyiv, and Constantinople. The fact that he sees Moscow as a better fish to catch, is a ruse too transparent to be considered by anyone, except the gullible, as being sincere in nature. As for the National hymn of Ukraine one cannot help but think that Kaspar would have preferred that piece of Church music to have been composed by a Bach, or a Beethoven, or perhaps even a Mozart, or yet better still, a Wagner. As for Kaspar's ecumenical approach, Yves Cardinal Congar would remind him of a better course of action, in Priest and Layman (1967): "We must persevere in maintaining — or rather, promoting — the unity of Christians and preserving the conditions of social unity, by ensuring contacts without watering down commitments" (p. 298). Using Congar as a light, it is not ecumenism to denigrate the rightful aspirations of your brother in the hope of winning back an estranged cousin — such a process is not known as ecumenism — rather it teeters on duplicity.  Image Credits:
©2008 Dr Andrew Thomas Kania |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Andrew
Thomas Kania is a visiting scholar at Blackfriars Hall at the
University of Oxford, where he is completing a book on Dag Hammrskjöld.
He has taken 12 months leave of absence from his position as Director
of Spirituality at Aquinas College, Manning in Western Australia
to complete this task. Prior to this appointment at Aquinas Dr.
Kania was a lecturer for the School of Religious Education at the
University of Notre Dame Australia as well as for the Catholic Institute
of Western Australia at Edith Cowan and Curtin Universities. Dr.
Kania belongs to the Ukrainian Church and is interested in ecumenical
issues as well as contemporary problems facing religious educators.|
Catholica Australia |