Sorry, this entry is only available in Українська. For the sake of viewer convenience, the content is shown below in the alternative language. You may click the link to switch the active language.

Еклезіологія «Завіщання Блаженнішого Патріярха Йосифа»

о. Мирон Бендик, ректор

З падінням комунізму в Україні багато життєво важливих тем, що заторкували буття народу, перестали бути забороненими. Предметом відвертих суспільних дискусій стала низка національно-культурних і суспільно-політичних питань. Особливе місце зайняла справа духовно-релігійного відродження, зокрема, Української Церкви як запоруки християнського оновлення й оцерковлення народу. Без перебільшення можна сказати, що після десятиліть духовної спраги цілий народ потягнувся до релігії і Церкви. Шукаючи своєї Церкви, тобто Церкви дідів і прадідів, широкі верстви народу з подивом відкривали розмаїття Церков, культів і релігійних течій, що ними сповнилась Україна в умовах релігійної свободи. Це розмаїття було настільки вражаючим, що людина без духовного досвіду відчувала себе дезорієнтованою й безсилою самотужки розшукати своє рідне, корінне.

 

Така ситуація зберігається й досі. З одного боку, відродилися Церкви, які декларують свій зв’язок із тисячолітньою християнською історією народу. Однак, посилаючись на спільну київську традицію, вони все ж не є однією Церквою. Часто відносини між Церквами київської традиції, м’яко кажучи, залишають бажати кращого. Взаємна нехіть, амбіційність лідерів, політизація, пошуки конфесійних привілеїв і державної підтримки тільки компрометують ідею єдиної Церкви і важким тягарем відповідальності перед Богом лягають на історичні Церкви України.

 

З другого боку, Україну наповнили представники нетрадиційних для неї релігій Заходу і Сходу – займатися серед українського народу місіонерською діяльністю. їхнє ставлення до традиційних Церков осцилює між пасивним і активним неприйняттям. Подібним є й їхнє ставлення до національної культури: місіонери, як правило, нічого про неї не знають, а їхні поняття про Україну навіть не наближаються до елементарних. Однак для обґрунтування необхідності цих новітніх течій і рухів в Україні їхні лідери апелюють до міжнародних правових норм щодо свободи совісті і прав людини. У підсумку, для народу, який шукає Церкви предків, власних культурно-історичних підстав, виникає неймовірно складна ситуація конфесії, що на них будуються, компрометують ці підстави, а новітні рухи ігнорують і народ, і древню культуру, приносячи зовсім іншу систему вартостей. А коли український народ унаслідок цього ще більше ділиться, витлумачують таке явище позитивно – як вияв плюралізму багатокультурності тощо.

На тлі таких неоднозначних релігійних процесів в українському суспільстві тим більшої ваги набирає презентація позитивного образу Української Церкви – історичної Матері духовного обличчя народу, могутнього інтеграційного чинника у творенні сучасної української нації. Таким образом Церкви, на наш погляд, сповнене «Завіщання Блаженнішого Патріярха Йосифа» (далі – Завіщання), геніального церковного діяча XX ст. Ідеї, висловлені в Завіщанні, заслуговують найпильнішої уваги. Ознайомлення з ними, очевидно, допоможе багатьом із тих, хто шукає Бога, Його правда й волі, знову віднайти рідну Церкву, відчути власне коріння серед розмаїття химерних та екзотичних релігійних «рослин», що своїм корінням намагаються обплести й заглушити рідне, Яка ж вона, ця Церква Христова, котра від понад тисячі років стала й нашою, українською?

Говорячи про місце української землі, в якому воплотилася Христова Церква, патріарх Йосиф без вагання називає Київ. Він не заглиблюється в різні теорії християнізації (апостольську – від Андрія Первозванного, тмутороканську – з Криму, кирило-методіївську – з Центральної Європи). Лише принагідно згадуючи про «двотисячолітню християнську культуру»1 України, Сліпий дає зрозуміти, що вважає присутність християнства на землях України набагато давнішою від офіційно вказаної дати масового охрещення киян 988 р. Підкреслення центрального місця Києва має для патріарха еклезіологічне значення, Адже «Київська митрополія» – це те «ім’я», яким стали називати Церкву в Україні. Саме її він називає «Матір’ю» всіх українців.2 Цей вираз надзвичайно вагомий у контексті пошуків народом свого духовного і церковного коріння. Застосовувався він до Церкви з давніх часів. Церква була і є Матір’ю християн у тому сенсі, що «народжувала і народжує» їх до вічного життя у водах хрещення. Про потребу Церкви для спасіння один із Святих Отців, Кипріян Картагенський, каже: «Не може мати Бога за Батька той, хто не має Церкви за Матір». Мислення про Церкву як Матір Йосиф Сліпий застосовує до Київської Церкви. Матір не вибирають. Ситуацію, в якій діти Церкви-Матері відійшли від неї чи пов’язали себе з іншими Церквами, патріарх називає «розгубленістю» під впливом обставин: «На історичному шляху вони розгубилися в різних країнах, серед різних народів і забули про матір, яка їх родила. Поможіть їм віднайти цю Матір!»3 Звідси й завдання сучасного моменту – допомогти дітям, що погубилися, віднайти матір. Адже вони, як діти Матері, генетично й історично несуть на собі риси «спадкової» схожості з Церквою-Матір’ю і тим духовної спорідненості між собою.

З особливим пієтетом Сліпий ставиться до Києва як своєрідного серця Матері-Митрополії. Для українського християнина Київ – це «наш Єрусалим».4 Він є свідком як хрещення 1000 років тому, так і Голгофи й воскресіння українського Народу Божого в XX ст. Водночас Київ – це «колиска християнства на Європейському Сході»5. Папа Іван Павло II розвинув цю думку під час паломництва в Україну, назвавши Київ «предтечею» охрещення інших народів.6 За еклезіологічним окресленням, Київська митрополія – Мати всіх українців – «народила» через євангелізацію митрополії інших народів східного слов’янства. Через те церковна роль Києва виходить поза суто національні межі і сягає всіх, хто завдячує своє охрещення Київській Церкві. До Києва Йосиф Сліпий має глибокий особистий сентимент: у підвалах київської в’язниці він карався, у підземеллях Софії Київської заповідав скласти свої тлінні останки у вільній Україні.7

Зростання і розвиток Київської митрополії з часом були нею усвідомлені, вираженням чого стала назва «Митрополія Києво-Галицька і всієї Руси». Саме так уперше було названо Церкву на Віленському Синоді 1509 р., і її згадує в Завіщанні Йосиф Сліпий.8 Київ і Галич протягом історії оберігали й примножували «Русь». Коли падав Київ, його роль – «серця» митрополії «всієї Руси» – продовжував княжий Галич. Так було в XIV ст., після спустошень монголо-татарської навали, так було і в XIX ст., коли Російська імперія знищила Київську митрополію. Йосиф Сліпий сим-волічно говорить про києво-галицький характер Церкви, згадуючи про два катедральні собори – Святої Софії в Києві і св. Юрія у Львові.9 Ці два собори у єдності – це вираз помісності Церкви і соборності єдиного народу. Від себе додамо, що Галицька митрополія з XIX ст. прийняла від-повідальність за збереження київської традиції й відіграла величезну роль у її відродженні в 90-х роках XX ст. Адже і греко-католики, і православні українці розпочали церковне відродження саме з Галичини, яку люблять називати П’ємонтом України.

Окресливши значення Києва й Галича як осідків Київської Церкви, патріарх Йосиф багато уваги присвячує такому виявові помісності, як форма правління. Главою і батьком Церкви від початків був київський митрополит. Очолював він митрополію, як пише в Завіщанні патріарх, «по взору інших Східних Церков».10 Глави помісних Церков Сходу мали різні єрархічні титули – патріархи, католикоси, митрополити, архиєпископи. Незалежно від титулу, всі вони в очолюванні своїх Церков мали рівні права. Йосиф Сліпий уточнює, що права київських митрополитів були «на зразок патріарших»11, тобто повноваження митрополитів у митрополії були рівнозначні повноваженням патріархів у патріархаті. Ще й нині глави Східних Церков мають різні титули: патріарх (Константинополя – Нового Риму), католикос (Грузії), митрополит (Еллади – Греції), архиєпископ (Кіпру). Проте як глави Церков усі вони патріархорівні.

Починаючи від середньовіччя, і на Сході, і на Заході чинилися спроби ввести дещо іншу еклезіологію, згідно з якою окремим Церквам належить більша влада у Вселенській Церкві (монархічна еклезіологія). Особливо багато зусиль у цьому напрямку приклали Константинопольська та Римська Церкви. їхні тези були дуже схожі: нема Церков у множині, а є одна Церква на чолі з одним Главою. Тому всі «глави» Церков на місцях є, по суті, вікаріями одного Глави, яким він уділяє частину своїх повноважень, а кожен титул (митрополит, архиєпископ) вказує на більшу чи меншу частину повноважень, що ними ділиться Глава Церкви. На християнському Заході митрополит чи єпископ вершили своє служіння «іменем Апостоль-ського престолу» (тобто Римського). На Сході було інакше. Київські митрополити не були «вікаріями Царгородських патріархів» і тому звершували свою владу як глави незалежно від Царгорода. Обрані з-поміж єпископів, свою владу вони черпали від Собору єпископів. Практиковане в митрополії благословення Царгородського патріарха новообраному митрополитові еклезіологічно було формою визнання вибору. Звичайно, Царгородський патріархат, змагаючись за «особливі права», намагався, як уже згадувалося, надати церковному благословенню характеру юридичного затвердження. Однак підставою таких намагань була не еклезіологія, а політичні претензії. І хоч би як там було з процедурою обрання, визнаний Київський митрополит реалізовував свою владу через творення нових єпархій, поставлення нових єпископів. Саме ці права були «на зразок патріарших».

Йосиф Сліпий був свідомий спадщини Київських митрополитів. Апостольське за суттю, служіння Київських митрополитів мало за собою тисячолітню традицію. Через історичні обставини, з XIX ст. це служіння перейшло до митрополитів Галицьких, котрі продовжували бути місцеблюстителями Київських. У цьому сенсі попередником Йосифа Сліпого був митрополит Шептицький, а себе патріарх Йосиф називає в Завіщанні «переємцем його заповітів»12. Ці «заповіти» щодо помісних прав Київських митрополитів становлять давнє право Київської Церкви. Кодекс канонів Східних Церков 1991 р. стверджує, що канони Кодексу треба оцінювати (інтерпретувати) «головним чином на підставі цього права» (ККСЦ, кан. 2).13 Це знаменне твердження. Згідно з ним, не канони Кодексу визначають право, а давнє право визначає канони. Це дозволяє стверджувати, що права київських митрополитів, які існують «з незапам’ятних часів»14, не можна усунути чи обмежити канонами Кодексу. Ці права Йосиф Сліпий реалізовував як у тодішньому Радянському Союзі (хіротонія о. Василя Величковського в Москві 1963 р. на місцеблюстителя Глави Церкви в Україні «для забезпечення апостольського наступства»), так і за його межами (хіротонії оо. І. Хоми, Л. Гузара і С. Чміля в Римі). Ці хіротонії були визнані Римським Апостольським Престолом.

Коли внаслідок переслідувань із боку радянського режиму очолювана Сліпим Церква стала гнаною, підпільною і через те «мовчазною», патріарх розглядав це лихоліття як нагоду свідчити віру Церкви перед «родом цим»15. І ця віра виявилася напрочуд зрілою, а репресії послужили очищенню й згуртуванню Церкви в Україні. Опиняючись у XX ст. під різними окупаційними режимами й потрапляючи в ситуацію «небажаних» і «другорядних» на власній землі, багато українців емігрувало і створювало поселення на різних континентах. Рідна Церква приходила до нових місць проживання українців і розвивалася там. На час вимушеної еміграції Йосифа Сліпого УГКЦ на поселеннях організаційно структурувалася в єпархії і митрополії, чому сприяла позитивна позиція Римського Апостольського Престолу. Разом із тим, українські єпархії в різних країнах поселень існували наче самі по собі, не було задовільної еклезіологічної моделі зв’язку між ними. Країни поселень українців уважалися територією Латинської Церкви, а єпархії УГКЦ – залежними від латинської юрисдикції обрядовими видозмінами. Такий стан мислення зберігся й досі: єпископів для єпархій УГКЦ в діаспорі призначає патріарх Заходу, а не Глава УГКЦ. Подібні проблеми, до речі, виникають зараз у східній діаспорі (в Росії, Казахстані) з відродженням там парафій УГКЦ: єпископ УГКЦ в Казахстані має статус «апостольського візитатора», тобто уповноваженого представника патріарха Заходу. Влучну характеристику такого стану дав нині покійний Максим Германюк, митрополит Канади:

Згідно з рішенням цього Собору (II Ватиканського), Східні Католицькі Церкви… повинні мати ту саму гідність і користуватись тими самими правами, що їх має латинський обряд. Але в дійсності… католицька Церква латинського обряду далі панує над усіма Східними Католицькими Церквами й не виявляє найменшого бажання змінити це своє панування над ними… Поза своїми територіями… вірні різних східних обрядів є сьогодні підчинені або прямо місцевим єпископам латинського обряду, або через своїх Апостольських екзархів чи єпархів – Священній Конгрегації для Східних Церков, що… так своєю структурою, як і проводом є частиною правління латинського обряду.16

Безперечно, такий устрій УГКЦ, коли вона існує як сукупність окремо взятих єпархій, не мав під собою еклезіологічних підстав. На цьому спекулювали неприхильні до Церкви кола, які заперечували еклезіологічну обґрунтованість існування УГКЦ. Ці ж заперечення лежали в основі згадуваних у Завіщанні переговорів між Римським Апостольським Престолом і Російською Православною Церквою.17 Успіх Цих переговорів мав стати «присудом смерті» для Української Церкви.

Перед обличчям небезпек, які нависли над УГКЦ як в Україні, так ї на поселеннях, Йосиф Сліпий висунув і здійснив позитивну програму розбудови й зміцнення УГКЦ, тобто – висловлюючись еклезіологічною термінологією – розбудови її помісності. Як перший елемент цієї програми, еклезіологічна модель УГКЦ покликана виразити тогочасний стан її розвитку. Основними складовими є поняття Церкви-Матері, що нею в Київська митрополія, і Церков-Доньок, тобто митрополій і єпархій УГКЦ на поселеннях.18 Така модель не є новим винаходом. Старовинна еклезіологія сопричастя саме так розуміла процес євангелізації народів. Місіонери готували ґрунт для охрещення, і коли воно ставалося, то еклезіологічно Церква-Мати, від якої прийшли місіонери, народжувала Церкву-Доньку – зародок майбутньої помісної (дорослої) Церкви. У такому сенсі Константинопольська Церква 988 р. стала Церквою-Матір’ю Київської. Своєю чергою, Київська Церква стала Матір’ю Московської.

Метафора «мати – донька», вжита в еклезіології, добре відображає динаміку розвитку церковного сопричастя: «донька» ще є під проводом «матері», причому материнська опіка не тотожна юридичній владі й пануванню. Разом із тим, «донька» ростиме й ставатиме дедалі самостійнішою, що викликатиме з боку «матері» законну радість. Застосовуючи цю модель динамічного сопричастя до відносин в УГКЦ, Йосиф Сліпий чітко називає Матерню Церкву: нею об’єктивно є не Римська чи Царгородська, а Київська. Церкви-Доньки, розсіяні у світі, спілкуючись із Матір’ю, розвиваються кожна у власному контексті. Це спілкування завжди наснажуватиме почуття ідентичності, а власний розвиток надаватиме кожній Церкві-Доньці її неповторного обличчя й можливості включення та інтегрування в культуру корінного народу. Церква-Донька не замикається в собі й не асимілюється, а свідомо дарує скарби київської традиції, водночас приймаючи вартості місцевої традиції. Вона стає чинником місцевого культурного життя, збагачуючи його. У перспективі Церква-Донька може дуже відрізнятися від Церкви-Матері, однак це зовсім не є підставою переривати спілкування.

Крім окреслення еклезіологічних підвалин УГКЦ в Україні та діаспорі, Сліпий уводить практичний інструмент реалізації такої церковної моделі – інституцію Синоду єпископів. Під його проводом у 60-70-х роках XX ст. проводилися регулярні Синоди, які послужили координації зусиль і спільним діям на благо цілої Церкви. При цьому Йосиф Сліпий, як Глава Церкви, був водночас голосом «мовчазної» Церкви в Україні, визнаним репрезентантом Києво-Галицької митрополії. Завдяки його особистій присутності Синод, єпископів, хоча й відбувався на поселеннях, мав усецерковний статус.

До праці над структуруванням Церкви Сліпий додає невтомні зусилля щодо все більшого розвитку в Церкві її київської ідентичності. У Завіщанні він називає декілька напрямків реалізації цих зусиль: побудова в Римі храму Святої Софії – Премудрості Божої, відкриття Українського Католицького Університету ім. св. Климента папи, відновлення монастиря Студійського уставу – або розвиток літургійного, богословського і духовного аспектів помісності УГКЦ.19

Київський характер цих аспектів очевидний. Храм Святої Софії будувався як копія Софії Київської. Він мав символічно вказувати на місце осідку Глави Церкви. Адже титул Глави Церкви мав не суто географічний, а й літургійний сенс. Він окреслював, у якому місці знаходився престол, на якому Предстоятель звершував Літургію помісної Церкви. Звершуючи Євхаристію, він разом із Божим Людом творив і являв Церкву Христову в даному місці. Римська Софія в ситуації гоніння, безперечно, символічно виражала Софію Київську. Монашество Студійського уставу притягнуло увагу Сліпого тому, що воно, як він пише в Завіщанні, відображало духовність Києво-Печерської лаври.20 Тут патріарх знову прагне наблизити Церкву до її київських духовних джерел. І, врешті, присвячуючи УКУ папі св. Клименту, Сліпий скеровує богослов’я Церкви до джерел нерозділеного християнства І тисячоліття, до часів, коли зв’язок Церкви на українських землях із Римським Апостольським Престолом існував на рівні свідчення віри й вірності в переслідуваннях. Служіння папи Климента як ісповідництво віри в Христа стало служінням УГКЦ в Україні. На цьому найглибшому рівні, «аж до пролиття крові», існував зв’язок Київської Церкви з Церквою Римською, звідси мало б черпати сили богослов’я сопричастя Церков – один із найголовніших пріоритетів київського богослов’я.

Згадані дії Сліпого в еміграції – символічні й водночас профетичні. Вони мали характер пророчих знаків, повний сенс яких починає відкриватися щойно зараз. Ці знаки творилися в діаспорі, проте їх справжнє значення розкрилось у вільній Україні. Найвиразнішим із них було проголошення патріаршого статусу Київської Церкви, вчинене під час Літургії в соборі св. Петра в Римі 1975 р.21 Відтоді Сліпий прийняв титул патріарха.

Питанню патріаршого статусу Церкви в Завіщанні присвячено багато уваги. Автор посилається на історію, показуючи, що вже в XVII ст. це питання стояло на порядку дня життя Церкви.22 Отже, піднімаючи його на Другому Ватиканському Соборі, Й. Сліпий діяв цілком у дусі київської традиції. За оцінкою патріарха, питання про патріархат природно постає в помісній Церкві з досягненням нею еклезіальної зрілості.23 Ознаками такої зрілості Сліпий називає наявність у Церкві власної традиції, яка проявляється в духовності, богослов’ї, літургії. Свідченням зрілості Церкви є також її мученики та ісповідники віри. Крім того, безперечним виявом церковної зрілості є здатність Церкви бути Матір’ю Церков-Доньок. Адже духовне «материнство» не відбулося б у незрілій, внутрішньо закритій Церквіі. Тому, з точки зору об’єктивних фактів, готовність Церкви бути патріархатом ні в кого не викликає сумнівів. Разом із тим, осмислення цього статусу самою Церквою, як і готовність інших Церков сприймати цей новий статус, є динамічним процесом, що потребує часу. Помісна еклезіологія розглядає розвиток якоїсь Церкви зсередини неї самої: помісна Церква, в міру внутрішньої готовності, ініціює певні процеси та розвиває їх, а тоді інші помісні Церкви-Сестри з радістю визнають зростання своєї Сестри. Ці міркування справедливі також щодо розвитку канонічного статусу – наприклад, від митрополичого до патріаршого. Уживемо порівняння: дитина стає дорослою через свій вік, а не тому, що її назвали чи проголосили дорослою батьки або вчителі. Подібно було з проголошенням патріархату 1975 р., вчиненим літургійно – через поминання патріарха. У Завіщанні патріарх наголошує на важливості такого поминання, яке має стати «правилом молитви» Київської Церкви.24 Спільна літургійна молитва розвиває й поглиблює церковну свідомість Божого Люду. Літургія являє в знаках дійсність, повнота якої відкривається в майбутньому. Патріарша свідомість Церкви, як і особа патріарха, є профетичними знаками для дозрівання Божого Люду до повної дійсності – не тільки називатись, але й бути патріаршою Церквою. Тепер, коли минуло вже понад чверть століття від проголошення, ми бачимо реальний розвиток патріаршої ідентичності Церкви; зроблене в символі-знакові дедалі більше стає реальністю.

Труднощі розвитку помісної свідомості всередині нашої Церкви помножилися на труднощі сприймання цього розвитку іншими Церквами-Сестрами. Найбільшою об’єктивною перешкодою на шляху сприймання (визнання) нашої Церкви патріаршою було і є те, що вони [Церкви-Сестри] практикують іншу, згадувану вже монархічну еклезіологію. Для її прихильників основна риса міжцерковних відносин – не партнерське сопричастя, а домінування одних і підпорядкування інших. Часом в еклезіології такий тип відносин називають уніатизмом. Природно, що ті Церкви-Сестри, котрі застосовували до Київської Церкви монархічну еклезіологію, зводили Київську Церкву до ролі підпорядкованої. Звідси випливала й позиція, що питання патріархату можуть вирішити тільки вони й у той час, який вважатимуть сприятливим. Патріарх Йосиф ніколи не погоджувався з таким трактуванням Київської Церкви:

Доводив я бл. п. папі Павлові VI, що в Східній Церкві ні папи, и навіть Вселенські Собори не встановляли Патріархатів окремих помісних Церков. Завершення тих Церков патріаршим вінцем було завжди овочем дозрілої християнської свідомості у Божому люді… Тільки дозріла свідомість своїх власних церковних і національних скарбів, своїх культурних і історичних надбань і цінностей, своїх трудів і жертв, ще входили в скарбницю цілої Вселенської Христової Церкви, створювали тверду основу для патріархату.25

Можна сказати, що й у наш час ставлення до проголошення патриархату 1975 p. залежить від прийнятої еклезіології. Для монархічної еклезіології це клопіт: чому не запитали дозволу в старших? Для еклезіології сопричастя – радість: ще одна помісна Церква стала дорослою. Коли Й. Сліпий називає в Завіщанні Церкву «Вселенською християнською родиною»26, то ця чудова еклезіологічна метафора відкриває Церкву як родину Церков-Сестер, сопричасних у єдиній родинній любові. Повноліттю якоїсь Сестри є родинною радістю. Заслуга патріарха Йосифа в тому, ЩО він не побоявся сказати про повноліття Київської Церкви.

«Буття патріархатом» як вираз помісного «буття собою», а також сопричасне визнання цього «буття» Церквами-Сестрами не є завершенням шляху і здійсненням цілей. Розвиток помісності продовжуватиметься. Згідно з думкою Сліпого, патріархат, започаткований УГКЦ, за своєю еклезіальною суттю виводить її поза межі дотеперішньої конфесійної свідомості. Він створює ширші рамки для досягнення єдності цілої Київської Церкви як Ті основа. Ще раз підкреслимо: основою об’єднання є не УГКЦ, а «патріархат Києво-Галицький і всієї Руси» 27 Тут думка Сліпого розходиться з підходом до об’єднання Церков київської традиції в сучасній Україні, згідно з яким кожна Церква усвідомлює себе конфесійно й об’єднання всіх розуміє як приєднання до своєї конфесії. Знову оживає монархічна еклезіологія: наша конфесія – домінуюча, інші – підпорядковані. Про нереальність такого «об’єднання» годі й говорити. Згідно зі Сліпим, об’єднання можливе на підставі партнерського сопричастя всіх Церков київської традиції через їхнє спільне стремління до церковної Повноти. Підставами для такого стремління є спільне минуле єдиної Київської Церкви, а також розвиток помісної свідомості в конфесійно поділених Церквах – від конфесійної до еклезіальної: «Ми, Церкви: греко-католицька, православна, – є одночасно Церквою». Свідомість єдиної Київської Церкви базуватиметься на еклезіології сопричастя Церков. Це створить передумови для соборної реалізації сопричастя через Собор Українського Божого Люду, про який Сліпий згадує в Завіщанні.28 Цей Собор духовенства і мирян обере єдиного патріарха Київської Церкви. Себе Йосиф Сліпий бачить лише профетичним символом такого патріарха, зднак твердить, що прийде час і Бог дасть його Церкві – ту особистість, навколо якої об’єднається Церква й увесь віруючий Божий Люд.29

У цьому місці Завіщання Сліпий знову подає «видіння» майбутнього Церкви.30 Реальна картина, котру бачимо ми, дуже далека від того, що іобачив Сліпий. Однак можемо припустити, що патріарх Йосиф, подібно до старця Йоана Богослова з Патмосу, на якого покликається, бачив далі від нас. Тим більше, що багато елементів його «апокаліпсису» вже стали дійсністю. Підійнявся з рабства народ, стала вільною держава… Зараз цей акт, але 1981 р., коли Сліпий закінчив писати Завіщання, ніхто так не думав. Зараз уже говоримо про нього не «мрійник, відірвався від життя», а «звідки він про це знав?»

Як видно з цього еклезіологічного аналізу, Й. Сліпий у Завіщанні зробив велику справу для українського народу. Наче передчуваючи наш час, – час великого духовного голоду, пошуків Бога і власного церковно-національного коріння, патріарх показав могутнє дерево Христової Церкви, що зиросло на Українській землі, в тіні якого знайшов своє місце наш народ: у цього дерева візантійсько-київське коріння і могутній стовбур Київської митрополії. Іноді дерево хворіло і тоді втрачало у своїй величі й красі, інколи його намагалися зрубати чи посадити на його місце якесь інше. Дехто, як ми згадували на початку, чинить спроби висадити в український ґрунт поруч із деревом Київської Церкви екзотичні рослини різних релігійних духів, котрі, по суті, паразитують на цьому 1000-літньому дереві. Йосиф Сліпий натхненно говорить про чудові перспективи зростання Христової Церкви в Україні, бачачи їх у єдиному патріархаті Києво-Галицькому і всієї Руси. Він стверджує, що дерево Церкви давно вже доросло до цього. Гілками його стали Церкви-Доньки по всьому світу. Христос, як садівник дерева-Церкви, подбає про формування крони, даючи Церкві патріарха. Київська Церква стала деревом життя народу, в його тіні народ просвітився. подібно як патріарх Авраам під дубом Мамре. І зараз, долаючи труднощі та перешкоди, це древнє дерево з юною силою притягає у свою тінь нові покоління українців. Завіщання патріарха є дороговказом до Церкви, з якої народ уже понад 1000 років черпає сили до життя, тривання в історії й розвитку. Ми вдячні Богові і патріархові Йосифу за такий дороговказ.

1. Завіщання Блаженнішого Патріярха Йосифа Сліпого // В. Ленцик. Визначні постаті Української Церкви: Митрополит Андрей Шептицький і Патріярх Йосиф Сліпий. – Львів, 2001. (Далі – Завіщання). – С. 593.

2 Там само. – С. 595.

3 Там само.

4 Там само. – С. 596.

5 Там само. – С. 591.

6 Пор.: Бюлетень АРІ. – 2001. -№ 6 (307). – С. 23.

7 Завіщання, див. прим. 1. – С. 597.

8 Пор.: Там само. – С. 590.

9 Пор.: Там само. – С. 589.

10 Завіщання, див. прим. 1. – С. 590.

11 Там само.

12 Там само. – С. 586.

13 Кодекс Канонів Східних Церков. – Мукачево, 1993. – С. 1.

14 Там само.

15 Завіщання, див. прим. 1. – С. 586.

16 М. Германюк. Слово на Синоді Єпископів у Римі 01.10.1974 // Благовісник Верховного Архиепископа Візантійсько-Українського (Греко-Руського) Обряду. – Рік. X. – Кастельґандольфо, 1974. – С. 18нн.

17 Завіщання, див. прим. 1. – С. 592.

18 Див.: Там само. – С. 595

19 Див.: Завіщання, див. прим. 1. – С. 589.

20 Див.: Там само. – С. 590.

21 Див.: Там само. – С. 593. –

22 Див.: Там само. – С. 590.

23 Див.: Там само. – С. 591.

24 Там само. – С. 593.

25 Завіщання, див. прим. 1. – С. 591.

26 Там само. – С. 584.

27 Там само. – С. 590.

28 Там само. С. 589.

29 Там само. С. 593.

30 Там само. С. 595.

 

Sorry, this entry is only available in Українська. For the sake of viewer convenience, the content is shown below in the alternative language. You may click the link to switch the active language.

8/02/2021

By Father Andrij Soletsky

Before addressing the topic, ecumenical thought and ecumenical activity of the two leaders of the Ukrainian Church, Metropolitan Sheptytsky and Patriarch Slipyj, we shall attempt to answer the basic question: what is ecumenism? Generally speaking, the definition can be the following: ecumenism is a movement toward a greater understanding among Christians of various confessions, the final goal of which is the renewal of unity of Christ’s Church while retaining the autonomy and individuality of each Christian denomination.

 

According to this definition, ecumenism is a phenomenon of the XX century. Its beginnings reach back to the year 1910, when in the Scottish metropolis of Edinburgh a world missionary conference took place during which ecumenical ideas were espoused. Inasmuch as this conference was organized by the Anglican Church, it is assumed that the Protestants gave birth to ecumenism. Indeed, during the first half of the XX century, the advocators of ecumenism, at least in the West, were as a rule, Protestant theologians and preachers. Regarding the Catholic Church, it actively joined this movement only at the end of the Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965).

 

However, as it was convincingly demonstrated by Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, one of the Eastern branches of the Catholic Church, specifically the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, began to develop the idea of ecumenism at the beginning of the XX century, well before the conference in Edinburgh in 1910, which was manifested most clearly in the ecumenical activities of the primate of that time, Servant of God, Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky.[1]

 

The topic Sheptytsky and ecumenism is complex and multi-faceted. It touches on a broad spectrum of not only theological and dogmatic ecclesiastical questions, but also on the social and political aspects. In analyzing the genesis of Sheptytsky’s views on Church unity, Husar does not hesitate in calling them ecumenical and in calling the Metropolitan a forerunner of contemporary ecumenism. On the other hand, other scholars in analyzing the activities of the Metropolitan’s contemporaries use other terminology, as for example, “The Pre-Ecumenical Approach to Christian Unity.”[2]  In pointing out the parallels between the teachings of the Metropolitan in the first half of the XX century and the resolutions of the Second Vatican Council as manifested in the documents concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches and ecumenism, Husar points out the beginnings of these ideas in the letter works of the Metropolitan.

 

Immediately after occupying the Metropolitan See of the Greek Catholic Church, Archbishop Andrew began his ecumenical work and marshalled all his energies and efforts on the unity of the Churches. His ecumenical, or as it was known at that time ‘Uniate’ work, was performed specially authorized by Pope Pius X. It is in this matter that he went incognito to Belarus and the Russian Empire where he developed contacts with supporters of unity and helped them to make contacts with the Apostolic See. For example, he sent Belarusian students to study in Lviv, Rome and Innsbruck[3].

 

Metropolitan Andrew formed his ecumenical plans based on a real historical need for the consolidation of the Ukrainian people. He considered the unity of Churches in East and West Ukraine a basic condition for the unification of the people, and the very idea of unity he saw within the context of the unity of all Christian Churches. It is important to note here that the Metropolitan did not use the term ‘ecumenism,’ but simply the word “РУХ”[4] – (movement). In the years 1905 and 1907, Metropolitan Andrew went clandestinely to Russia; he visited Moscow and St. Petersburg as well as Kyiv and attempted to come to terms with the perspectives of union activities on the territory of the Empire while making contacts with Orthodox Ukrainians and Russians who leaned toward the unity of Churches.[5]

 

It is important to note that while defending the rights of Ukrainian citizens in various parts of the Russian Empire, the Metropolitan did not discriminate between Western and Eastern Ukrainians, although he understood very well that they had different Church affiliations. His work toward the unity of Churches was focused on the Orthodox as well as on the Catholics. He made his position concerning the ecumenical process very clear: “The essence of any kind of activity for Church unity must be as follows: it must do everything to change the thinking of our brothers, the eastern Christians, in such a manner that they themselves would, of their own free will, seek a unity with the center of the Catholic Church.”[6]

 

Long ago, in the year 1907, in his pastoral letter to the clergy, Andrey Sheptytsky wrote the following prophetic words, “the times are nigh in which we, without doubt, shall be called to a most important, but also most difficult task – the unity of the Eastern Churches. This work is a real idealistic goal and it is the answer to our most fervent prayer. According to prevalent thought, the clergy of our province, in response to divine Providence, is able and should place this matter under the protection of the Universal Church of Christ. Our position between East and West demands this. United with the West in our faith and with the East in our rite, more than anyone else, we shall be able to work on the great renewal of Church unity….”[7]

 

These words of Andrey Sheptytsky are an eloquent testimony to his profound understanding of the historical mission of the Greek-Catholic Church in the matter of mutual understanding and the eventual unity of the Christian East and the Christian West. This mission of the Greek-Catholic Church, according to the great Metropolitan, is also determined by a geopolitical factor. From the very beginnings of acceptance and spread of Christianity in Rus’-Ukraine, Ukraine quite naturally became a bridge between the East and the West. The great achievement of the Metropolitan is the fact that he focused the attention on this phenomenon, crystallized and documented the idea regarding the historic mission of the Ukrainian Church which is not only to unite within itself the spiritual riches of these two Christian civilizations and be at the same time a passive object of their influences and interests, but also, and most of all, to become an active factor in ecclesiastical relations between them.

 

But the geopolitical condition is not the only factor that determines the character of Ukrainian Greek-Catholicism. As a natural mediator between the Orthodox East and the Catholic West, there was another factor which inspired Andrey Sheptytsky to seek ways toward peace and eventual unity for Catholics and Orthodox.  That factor was the Ukrainian people’s lack of statehood and the growth of the national liberation movement. The great Metropolitan knew well that in the battle for the renewal of independence of the Ukrainian state there was first and foremost a necessity for brotherly unity of the Catholics and the Orthodox – to put it bluntly, the liquidation of the historic Kyivan Church. He wrote as follows, “The matter of unity of the churches is of great importance for the Ukrainian people. The unity of religion is perhaps the essential condition for a national solidarity and can become the basis of a moral unity and profound foundation for all people who believe themselves to be Ukrainian.” The achievement of unity of religion in “our native home,” according to Andrey Sheptytsky, might point the way to the realization of the ecumenical idea within the framework of the Universal Church. Championing these two great ideas was the Servant of God, Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky, dedicating his theoretical, theological and practical activity.

 

As an ecumenist, Andrey Sheptytsky desired to maintain contact with the Orthodox: he studied their history, their theology, their canon law, their rite and he also maintained personal contacts with them. From these contacts, the Metropolitan learned several valuable lessons: how the Orthodox could receive the Union, but not in the form of the Union of Brest. The first lesson was the understanding that for the union to be effective for ecumenical activity, it had to be reformed in such a manner so that it could agree with its original purpose. Then Sheptytsky fought against so called “Uniatism,” which insisted that to be Catholic the faithful had, at least partially, to take some elements from the Latin rite. With the passing of time, Sheptytsky’s views developed and perfected themselves through a dialogue with the Orthodox and he came to the conclusion that the idea of the Union as Uniatism had to be rejected in favor of a better, more ecumenical, process. And this is exactly what he did with the Russian Catholic Church, not being limited as he was in his own Church. In the years 1941-1942, he continued this dialogue with the Orthodox clergy and intelligentsia and with considerable diplomatic talent, he clearly spoke about the possibility of seeking another solution[8].

 

In speaking about the ecumenical activities of the great Metropolitan we should not omit the mention of the Visegrád Congress. He was their real inspiration and their first chairman. The first of these congresses took place in 1907 and it continued to take place every two years until the First World War. These congresses documented the theses about the equality of rites in the Universal Church, created a strong nucleus of the ecumenical movement, one that sincerely desired Church unity, and placed this movement on a solid theological/dogmatic foundation.

It should be mentioned that in the spirit of ecumenism, the Metropolitan always turned to the Orthodox hierarchy and intelligentsia in matters of Church unity, stressing that he was not a candidate for Patriarch of Ukraine and that the Patriarch had to be someone from Eastern Ukraine who recognizes the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff.[9] This kind of unity did not mean that the person needed to be under the Pope as Patriarch of the West, it rather means, “the recognition of the highest authority as a father and pastor of the Universal Church.”[10]

 

Already in his first pastoral letter in 1901, the Metropolitan calls on the clergy, “to be ready to sacrifice blood for holy faith.”  This very sacrificial life of the Metropolitan for the sake of Church unity, his readiness to sacrifice himself for the sake of Christ and his people, became the reasons to open the process of his beatification.

 

In order to show how fervently the Metropolitan desired and dedicated himself to the matter of Church unity, we are quoting a part of his letter (December 26, 1939) to Cardinal Tisseran:

“I repeat once more my plea, which I send to the Holy Father through the good offices of Your Eminence. And I asked again that the Holy Father, by means of his Apostolic and Paternal Blessing, would allow, appoint and authorize me to die for the sake of faith and unity of the Church.”[11]

 

 

The Ecumenical Activity of Patriarch Josyf Slipyj

 

A great disciple of the great teacher was Josyf Slipyj. One could possibly have the impression that in questions of ecumenism Slipyj was in the shadow of Sheptytsky as indicated by Jaroslav Pelikan. Nevertheless, when Slipyj came to Rome in 1963, in his words to Pope John XXIII (today a saint,) one could hear a certain attitude of peace between the Church of the East and the Church of the West. A profound knowledge of the question of unity brought Slipyj to the conclusion that both sides (East and West) must shoulder historical responsibility for the division of Christianity. This attitude was not without its criticisms to ecumenism Catholic style (which wants to arrive at unity, but does not want to conduct a dialogue.) Patriarch Josyf cited John XXIII as a man of “heroic humility” who accused the West of the Schism between East and West. The responsibility for the Schism rests on our shoulders. In order to change the situation, according to Pope John XXIII, “it is necessary to carry on a dialogue with them” instead of judging and rejecting them. This is a new attitude and new approach of Josyf Slipyj after coming to Rome from captivity.

 

Ecumenism as the work for the unity of churches, just as with his predecessor Sheptytsky, becomes the spiritus movens as priest and hierarch. Although the academic background of Slipyj was scholasticism, nonetheless ecumenical, or as it was known at that time, the question of union was of perpetual interest to him. While studying in Rome at the Pontifical Gregorian University in 1922, he traveled to Visegrád and wrote an article for the clergy in the monthly journal Nyva. This work is important for us for in it, on the basis of the observations made my Dr. Josyf Slipyj, we are able to see how the ecumenical movement was born.[12]  He wrote that in Visegrád, in this capital of the once powerful Moravian state, on the territory of the Slavic apostles Cyril and Methodius, reigned a friendly atmosphere and “a peaceful and ideal co-existence of both rites.” During the process of writing, his psychology and thinking changed and a new world opened to him regarding church unity. One can boldly assert that the Visegrád Congresses approached these problems which were later studied at the Second Vatican Council.[13] Also, in his articles on the Congresses, Fr. Josyf did not ignore the various confrontational moments that took place in them.[14]

 

In 1924 (7/31 – 8/3) Fr. Slipyj took part in the Fourth Union Congress in Visegrád. He delivered a paper entitled “The Meaning of St. Thomas for the Cause of Unity.” In this work he posed the question concerning theological/ideological divergencies between East and West. In addition to this union congress, he also participated in other congresses in Prague and Pinsk[15].

 

Just like Metropolitan Andrey, Josyf Slipyj did not espouse the view that the unity between Orthodox and Catholic Churches must come at any price, he considered both churches to have equal rights. He analyzed the ecumenical problems in his salient work, “Byzantism yak forma kultura” [Byzantism as a form of culture] the tenets of which were approved during the Fourth Papal Conference which dealt with that topic. Slipyj revealed both the strong and the weak sides of the two confessions and evaluated Eastern Byzantism and Western Scholasticism.[16]

 

In the conclusion of this work the author formulated his own ecumenical principle. “Neither a single thing nor any creative activity can fully reveal the power, the beauty and the glory of God’s wisdom and the unfathomable depths of divine revelation. The more there are diverse forms and cultures, the better and more complete is the expression of the activities of the Church. From this point of view, the Byzantine culture has the right to exist and to flower within the Catholic Church.”[17]

 

In 1936, on the occasion of the three hundredth anniversary of the death Metropolitan Josyf Rutsky, Fr. Josyf on behalf of Metropolitan Andrey organized in Lviv a union congress.[18] Over two hundred people attended and twelve papers were delivered. His Beatitude read a paper entitled “Views on United and Non-United Churches of the East and the Dogmatical Differences Among Them.”

 

In addition to interesting thoughts, the ecumenical movement in the entire Church, the author also offered a projection of a program of union which was supposed to be realized by the Ukrainian Church, a living witness of the struggle for union of Christ’s Church throughout the centuries of its history. The author wanted the Ukrainian Church as a creation of the union movement of the past to cease being an object, or an experimental model of all kinds of changing conceptions, but rather that she be complete in her own right and discipline in further ecumenical struggles and that this Church should attain its autonomous rights enjoyed legitimately by other churches of the Christian East.[19]

 

Here are the titles of the papers delivered by His Beatitude during various sessions of the congresses:

 

1. De valore S. Thomae Aquinatis eiusque influx in theologiam orientalem – 1924;
2. De septenario numero sacramentorum apud Orientales uti vincula Unionis et conservationis fidei – 1933 ;
3. De cultu SS. Cyrilli et Methodii in Ucraina – 1936.

 

In speaking about Patriarch Josyf, Father Ivan Dacko voiced the following observations:

 

“His knowledge of theology acquired and formed in Lviv, Innsbruck and Rome was neo-scholasticism which dominated the theology in the first decades of the twentieth century. Written in the same spirit were his theological studies and his textbook on dogmas concerning sacraments; this is how he viewed the church until 1945, the year of his incarceration. His eighteen year imprisonment and exile, and this does sound rather paradoxical, was for him a time of profound meditation, a re-evaluation of his views and the study of the spirituality, theology and the general understanding of the Church in the East where he lived, suffered and which he studied.”[20]

 

After eighteen years of exile

 

On 11 October 1963 during the fifth session of the Second Vatican Council, Cardinal Agajanyan, who was the chair of this session, recognized the Metropolitan who was met by the fathers of the council with spontaneous applause. They were all eager to hear what the Metropolitan had to say about contemporary problems of Church life after having spent eighteen years isolated from the world of culture. At the council it was made clear that each presentation be limited to ten minutes, yet the speech of the Metropolitan/Confessor lasted twenty minutes and was listened to with rapt attention. The speech was characterized by a clarity of thought, profound theological arguments and a sonorous voice. The fathers of the Council saw before them not only a heroic confessor of faith, but also a profound theological thinker and great pastor who understood all the problems of Christ’s Church and who shed light on them, the Church of martyrs’ and all those who suffered with her. At the end of his speech, Metropolitan Josyf presented the fathers of the Council with a project for the creation of a Kyivan-Halych Patriarchate.[21] Metropolitan Josyf’s second speech was delivered at the Third Session of the Council; it was a defense of the Eastern Churches from Latinization. There he spoke in the name of all Ukrainian hierarchs and in his speech it was felt that the Confessor of Faith, “speaks of something of extreme importance for the entire Church and at the same time about something that is most painful for the Eastern Church: ‘it is a question of whether to be or not to be for the Eastern Church,’ referring to the Latinization of the Christian East.”[22]

 

Ukrainian hierarchs noted with joy that the Second Vatican Council had representatives from the Ukrainian Orthodox communities of the United States. Also, the hierarchs from the Ukrainian Catholic Church sent from the Second Vatican Council a greeting to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This greeting contained the following words: “Following the example of the hierarchs of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches who, on the occasion of the ecumenical council, rid themselves of the relics of painful memories of the past, let us too rid ourselves of painful memories from the history of our two Ukrainian Churches and in a new ecumenical spirit let us begin a new relationship in Christian love and brotherhood.”[23] His Beatitude expressed his unease concerning the fact that Eastern Catholics are losing the individual characteristics of their rite, their discipline and their theology and take over almost mechanically all kinds of Latin elements which have a detrimental effect on their rite.

 

Just like the great Metropolitan Andrey, His Beatitude Josyf used all his strength to move the Christian East closer to the Catholic Church, first of all with our not yet united brethren on Ukrainian lands. He stressed that nations which were in union with the Apostolic See retained their rite and their discipline. There was a quest to regain the ancient core of the Church, when both Churches adhered to the same doctrines of faith, recognized the parity of rites and each developed autonomously and equally[24].

 

In working toward the renewal of Eastern tradition, Josyf Slipyj places first and foremost not the differences and elements of alienation between the two, but rather elements of commonality, respect and love; after all we should not forget that the influences from both Eastern and Western Churches on the world were the same. Differentiation between Eastern and Western theology would seem to be detrimental on the former as well as on the latter. The basis of Eastern theology on its traditions had to take into account the achievements of the West. At the same time, he believed in the need for liturgical identity. He was worried that even in the Galician lands there was a variety of rights present even though the Ukrainian Church demands as a whole one identity comprised of two parts (the Catholic and the non-United). The ritual identity is intimately united with the desire of national aspiration and exerts a positive influence on it. The desire to have a liturgical identity was affirmed by the Union congress of 1936 and it corresponds to the needs of many classes of people. But Josyf Slipyj warns against the attempts to forcefully spread the Galician rite to the whole of Ukraine. The basis of this we see in the beginning of the XVII century, that is the first period of the union, “and according to this, take from later neologisms that which is viable and essential and that which corresponds with its content or at least to its form to the spirit of the rite.” This kind of approach can be explained by the fact that the Ukrainians received the face of Christ from Byzantium and never lost contact with it. During the first decades of the XVII century the Ukrainian rite, “at first in the Catholic faith and then in that of the non-United was very little effected by foreign influences and developed in an independent manner;” “it was completely ours and a natural creation of the Church.”[25]

 

The scholarly heritage of Josyf Slipyj contains a number of works dedicated to the famous names of the Christian Church. Among is the first called Apostle Andrew, the patron of the Ukrainian Catholic University of St. Clement Pope, with whom Christianity on Ukrainian lands identifies its mission. Another preacher of Church unity in the lands of our forebears was Pope Martin I who, after his exile from Rome, was martyred in Constantinople and condemned to death but eventually sent to Crimea, where he suffered a martyr’s death in 655. With these Popes, Josyf Slipyj links the name of Maksym the Confessor who, following the Lateran Synod, was exiled to the coast of the Black Sea, to Lazika. His Beatitude stressed, “this trinity maintained an ecclesiastical unity which grew and developed later under Volodymyr (Vladimir).”[26]

 

He also writes about St. Josaphat, Metropolitan Josyf (Rutsky), his great predecessor the Righteous Metropolitan Andrey, who all their lives worked toward the unity of the Church. “The work about St. Josaphat ends with the words, ‘just like the union bore witness with the works of St. Josaphat that it was not alien to our nation and our history and that it is based on our tradition and our culture, in the same manner it also testifies that it wholeheartedly embraces the autonomy of Ukraine.’” The Ukrainian people will always be grateful to the merciful God that He chose from our people one great and untiring warrior for the realization of Christ’s wish that “all be one.”[27]

 

On the thirtieth anniversary of the death of Metropolitan Andrey, His Beatitude Josyf said the following words:

 

“Today we glorify the memory of the Great Metropolitan, a Confessor of Faith and a person of aristocratic blood and dynamic spirit. We glorify a man of prayer and profound thought who is also held in high esteem by the Orthodox faithful as a pioneer of dialogue between our Orthodox and Anglican brethren. He was the spirit of unlimited greatness and sensitivity. His humble and holy life, his dedication in the struggle against enemies became the reason for his beatification which has already been accomplished.”

 

His Beatitude wrote a separate article about Metropolitan Andrey in the spread of the Catholic Church in Russia. Immediately after his liberation in 1917, the Metropolitan convoked a synod in St. Petersburg which was called the Eparchial Synod of the Greek-Catholic Church in Russia. The participants of this synod recognized the primacy of the Roman Pontiff while maintaining their Greek-Eastern rite. This synod duty-bound the priests “to stress the positive side of Catholic teachings and avoid polemics.”[28]

As a counselor of Metropolitan Andrey and the continuator of his cause, His Beatitude Josyf followed in his footsteps. He dedicated all his energies to bring closer the Christian East with the Catholic Church. Because of this, he did many things to achieve that: “he reformed the curriculum of the Theological Academy in accordance with the newest models and demands of our Church; wrote many scholarly treatises, etc.”[29] In his spiritual Testament, Patriarch Josyf, a passionate adherent to universal ecumenism, urged the people first of all to pray, to work and to struggle for the preservation of “the Christian soul of each human being of the Ukrainian nation and for all the Ukrainian people” and beseech the Almighty God that He “help us to fulfill our yearning to be united and complete our struggle for ecclesiastical unity in the creation of the Patriarchate of the Ukrainian Catholic Church.[30]”

[1] Див.: Гузар. Л.  Андрей Шептицький – Митрополит Галицький (1901-1944) провісник екуменізму. – Вид. Друге. – Жовква: Місіонер, 2015. 496 с.

[2] Tretjakewitsch L. Bishop Michel d’Herbigny SJ and Russia. A Pre-Ecumenical Approach to Christian Unity// Das Östliche Christentum. – Bd. 39. – Würzburg, 1990.

[3] В. Ленцик, Нарис історії Української Церкви. Львів, 2003, с. 450.

[4] Л. Гузар, Митрополит Андрей Шептицький та екуменізм//Богословія. Том 65. Книги 1-4,  Львів 2001, с. 47.

[5] Г. Гладка, Екуменічні пошуки патріарха Йосифа Сліпого в контексті релігійної і суспільно-політичної діялності митрополита Андрея Шептицького//Кардинал Йосиф Сліпий і сучасність. Івано-Франківськ 2002, с. 78; Я. Москалик, Ідея об’єднання церкви за вченням митрополита Андрея Шептицького//Богословія. Том 67. Книги 1-2, Львів 2003, с. 92-93.

[6] Л. Гузар, Митрополит Андрей Шептицький та екуменізм//Богословія. Том 65. Книги 1-4, Львів 2001, с. 34; Г. Гладка, Екуменічні пошуки патріарха Йосифа Сліпого в контексті релігійної і суспільно-політичної діялності митрополита Андрея Шептицького//Кардинал Йосиф Сліпий і сучасність. Івано-Франківськ 2002, с. 79.

[7] Цит. За : Шептицький А. Пастирське послання до духовенства «Зближаються часи …» від 26. ХІ, 1907 р. // Шептицький А. Пастирські послання 1899-1914 рр. – Львів: АРТОС, 2007. – Т. 1. – С. 64.

[8] Див.: Гузар Л. Андрей Шептицький – Митрополит Галицький (1901-1944) провісник екуменізму. – Вид. друге. – Жовква: Місіонер, 2015. – С. 481.

[9] В. Ленцик, Нарис історії Української Церкви, Львів 2003, с. 453.

[10] Я. Москалик, Ідея обєднання церкви за вченням митрополита Андрея  Шептицького// Богословія. Том 67. Книги 1-2, Львів 2003, с. 92-93.

[11] Л. Гузар, Митрополит Андрей Шептицький та екуменізм//Богословія. Том 65. Книги 1-4, Львів 2001, с. 39.

[12] Біографічний нарис Патпіарха Йосифа Слипого, підготовлений з нагоди 40-ліття (1.11.1944) його вступлення на Галицький митрополичий престіл у Львові єпископом Іваном Хомою та о. Д-ром Іваном Музичкою// Слово Патпіарха Йосифа. Документи. Матеріали. Світлини. 1917-1984, Львів 2003, с. 24.

[13] О. ГРИНІВ. Йосиф Сліпий як історик; філософ, педагог, Львів 1994, с. 27.

[14] Там само, с. 27.

[15] О. МИШАНИЧ, Митрополит Йосиф Слипий перед «судом» КГБ (За архівними джерелами), Київ 1993, с. 5.

[16] Г. Галадка, Екуменічні пошуки патріарха Йосифа Сліпого в контексті релігійної і суспільно-політичної діяльності митрополита Андрея Шептицького// Кардинал Йосиф Слипий і сучасність, Івано-Франквіськ 2002, с. 80.

[17] Там само.

[18] Унійний З’їзд у Львові, Львів 1937; Унійний З’їзд у Львові// Твори Кир Йосифа Верховного Архиєпископа і Кардинала (Opera Omnia Kyr Josephi Slipyj-Kobernyckyj-Dyčkovskyj Archiepiscopi Maioris et Cardinalis). Зібрали о. Проф. Д-р. Іван Хома і о. Д-р. Юриі Федорів (Collegerunt Presb. Prof. Dr. Joannes Choma et. Choma Presb. Dr. Georgius Fedoriw). Том V. Vol. Рим 1971 Romae, c. 95-106.

[19] Біографічний нарис Патпіарха Йосифа Слипого, підготовлений з нагоди 40-ліття (1.11.1944) його вступлення на Галицький митрополичий престіл у Львові єпископом Іваном Хомою та о. Д-ром Іваном Музичкою// Слово Патпіарха Йосифа. Документи. Матеріали. Світлини. 1917-1984, Львів 2003, с. 25.

[20] І. Дацько, Екуменічна й еклезіологічна мисль Патріярха Йосифа // http://www.ecumenicalstudies.org.ua/sites/default/files/docs/Ekklesiologia_Slipoho.pdf.

[21] W. Dushnyk, The Ukrainian-Rite Catholic Church at the Ecumenical Council, 1962-1965. A collection of articles, book reviews, editorials, reports, and commentaries with special emphasis on Ukrainian-Rite and other Eastern Churches, New York-Winnipeg-Paris 1967, pp. 46-47; А. Сапеляк, Київська Церква на Слов’янському Сході, с. 196-197; Андрій Сапеляк (ЄПИСКОП), Спогади владики-місіонера, с. 99; The Second Vatican Council Diaries of Met. Maxim Hermaniuk, C.SS.R. (1960-1965). Translated by Jaroslav Z. Skira; annotated by Karim Schelkens, Leuven-Paris-Walpole, MA 2012, pp. 131-132.

[22] За рідну Церкву. Офіційний Бюлетень Централі Комітетів оборони Обрядів, традицій і мови Української Католицької Церкви у США і Канади.Рік ІІІ. 1968. Ч. 3-4 (21-22). Маємо Блеженнішого Верховного Архиєпископа. Частина третя. З нагоди приїзду їх Блаженства Блаженнішого Верговного Архиєпископа і Кардинала Кир Йосифа до Канади в червні Р.Б. 1968, Торонто 1968, с. 5; А. Сапеляк, Київська Церква на Слов’янському Сході, с. 195; Андрій Сапеляк (ЄПИСКОП), Спогади владики-місіонера, с. 98; Білше про Митрополита Йосифа та питання Східних Церков на ІІ Ватиканському Соборі див. у: Л. Геник, Митрополит Й.Сліпий і проблемий Східних Церков на ІІ Ватиканському Соборі // Кардинал Йосиф Сліпий і сучасність. Збірник матеріалів Всеукраїнської наукової конференції на пошанування 110-ї річниці від дня народження Глави Української Греко-Католицької Церкви, Кардинала Йосифа Сліпого (11-12 жовтня 2002 р.), Івано-Франківськ 2002, сс. 72-76.

[23] О. Гринів, Йосиф Сліпий як історик, філософ, редагог, Львів 1994, с. 64.

[24] Там само, с. 21.

[25] О. Гринів, Йосиф Сліпий як історик, філософ, педагог, Львів 1994, с. 24.

[26] Там само, с. 35, 37.

[27] Там само, с. 48, 52.

[28] О. Гринів, Йосиф Сліпий як історик, філософ, педагог, Львів 1994, с. 60.

[29] Г. Гладка, Екуменічні пошуки патпіарха Андрея Шептицького // Кардинал Йосиф Сліпий і сучасність, Івано-Франківськ 2002, с. 79.

[30] Заповіт для духовенства та вірних Патріарха Йосифа Сліпого // Слово Патріарха Йосифа. Документи. Матеріали. Світлини. 1917 – 1984, Львів 2003, с. 163-182.

Dr. Karim Schelkens

Introduction

 

Upon my arrival in Moskwa Hotel, sixth floor, I identified Slipyj, who was coming from the opposite corridor, by his stature, the look of his eyes. I went to meet him and said : ‘Are you Archbishop Slipyj ?’ He answered : ‘Are you coming from Rome ? I said yes. He continued : ‘I waited eighteen years for you’.[1]

 

These words were written down by John Cardinal Willebrands in the early 1990’s, reminiscing one of the most impressive moments in his long career. Today, the moment in early february 1963, where Willebrands travelled to Moscow has its place among the list of memorable moments in twentieth century church history. This moment also marks the starting point of my contribution to the present Symposium, celebrating the 120 anniversary of Cardinal Slipyj’s birth. As a non-ukrainian, I consider myself an “amateur” of contemporary Ukrainian church history. An amateur in the best sense of the word, as one who has gradually discovered the richness, the complexity and … the often painful story of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) throughout the late 19th and 20th centuries. It is with some feelings of awe, therefore, that I present this modest contribution, and with a sharp awarenes of its limited scope. Studying the role of Metropolitan Slipyj at Vatican II is not an easy task. First of all, other and better scholars before me – and I am naturally thinking of Jaroslav Pelikan[2] here ‑ have devoted time and pages to this, and I have no intention to challenge or redo their work. So I decided to choose a particular perspective or approach for my talk, departing from the field I am most confident with : Sources on Vatican II history, and more in particular : Diaries of Council participants. In the past decade, a vast number of council diaries have been made available to the public, and most recently, I have had the chance to be involved in two edition projects that proved to be very relevant as a background for my current contribution : first, the edition of the diaries of Card. John Willebrands[3], who played a key role in Slipyj’s departure from the USSR in early 1963 ; and second, the council notes of Ukrainian Greek Catholic Metropolitan Hermaniuk, from the Winnipeg Metropolia[4]. The combination of these two sources, with other diaries and archive documents offers one an interesting account of Slipyj’s role and activities at the Council. From there, I depart, all the while making use of other existing sources and literature. The contribution is necessarily partial therefore, and I am always open for additions and comments that may enrich the scope of this modest study.

 

 

A Balance Yet to Be Found : the First Intersession

 

Returning to the notes jotted down by the late Cardinal Willebrands we find ourselves already in the middle of the conciliar event of Vatican II. Vatican II, for Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj, spans a period of a mere two and a half year, between early spring of 1963 until the winter of 1965. For the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Community, however, the event had started already in 1960, and in particular as of October 1962 it was not void of painful moments[5]. Besides the absence of Slipyj himself – clearly mentioned in the Ukrainian Episcopate’s 1962 Pastoral Letter, under the header “Our Joy is Mixed with Sorrow”[6] –, the Ukrainian hierarchy had to cope with the ecumenically motivated presence of Russian Orthodox representatives at the Council – Vitali Borovoi and Vladimir Kotliarov. Their presence alone had marked the first council period strongly, but added to it was the change of direction taken in the Vatican Ostpolitik. These issues deserve a study of themselves, but I will not go into them in the limited framework of this contributions.

Josyf Slipyj, travelling from Moscow, via Vienna, and ultimately to the Grottaferrata Abbey near Rome, arrives there during the first intersession[7]: An “in-between” moment at which many of the fifteen Ukrainian diaspora bishops had returned home to their flock, in the US, Canada, England, Brazil, … Moreover, this early in 1963, even most of the Conciliar Commissions were not very active, its members spread over the globe to pick up what they had left behind before they come to the eternal city. So, even when the moment of “liberation” was filled with deep emotions[8], as is so well described by Fr. Stransky CSP. Even when an already very ill Pope John XXIII personnally rejoiced in the Metropolitan’s release, and had him picked up upon his arrival by his personal driver in the Pope’s car[9], the atmosphere surrounding this major moment had something awkward. Quickly the news of Slipyj’s release spread, and Ukrainian Catholics in the free world were thrilled with enthousiasm. At the same time many were surprised by the overall silence surrounding this joyful event. No front pages in Catholic newspapers, a minor article in L’Osservatore Romano. It took a while before many come to realize that the background of this silence lay in a officious agreement between the Vatican State Secretariat and Moscow’s Department for Foreign Affairs: no media coverage was be given to the event, an agreement arranged by Willebrands and Norman Cousins, and stressed by Khruthchev[10]. The unofficial diplomacy round that – also due to the help of the Russian Orthodox archpriest Vitali Borovoj[11] – led to Slipyj’s release as a personal favour from Kruthchev to the Pope, was an ungoing one. Cousins would return to Moscow as ‘informal’ envoy again in Early April, 1963[12]. To illustrate the feelings on the Ukrainian side of the story, one has but to read the notes in Met. Hermaniuk’s diary on February 20, 1963 :

 

Today I received from Ottawa, in a press communiqué of the CCC, in French, news that our Metropolitan Josyf “is resting” in the monastery of Grottaferrata near Rome, and that no one, apart from three Ukrainians from that monastery, can see him (not even anyone from our clergy in Rome). What is this supposed to mean? It’s difficult to know[13].

 

All of the above indicates the complex situation in which, after eighteen years of imprisonment, the Metropolitan landed into. He was in the free world, but still exiled from his native soil, and a subject of both geo-political stakes[14], and of the tensions between several Roman dicasteries (the Vatican State Secretariat, the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, the Secretariat for Christian Unity). Amidst this turmoil, Josyf Slipyj was to seek and regain his own place[15]. Not to mention the effect of his return on the balances within the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Hierarchy. Very rapidly so, determing the place and role of the Metropolitan became a topic of discussion with a variety of aspects being raised :  What role was the Metropolitan to play as a Council Father, now that the conciliar machinery was already well running ? Would it be thinkable to have him as a Ukrainian respresentative in the Secretariat for Christian Unity ?[16] What was to be his authority within the Ukrainian Conference of Bishops ? Would the Council provide with the momentum for the (re-)establishment of an Ukrainian Greek Catholic Patriarchate ? What attitude will the Metropolitan take in the conciliar discussions on Religious Liberty, and over against the Soviet Union ? All of these issues will come to the fore in the conciliar period, with varying intensity.

 

Although, as is convincingly shown by Jaroslav Pelikan, the Metropolitan displayed a remarkable range of activities in the first year after his release, much of the matters summed up above would only really come to the forefront by the fall of 1963. On September 26, Slipyj visited a delegation from the Secretariat for Christian Unity[17], discussing with them the conciliar approach to religious freedom. The topic was crucial for the council and engendered stark opposition, also from anti-communist-inspired sources. Slipyj’s attitude was delicate, … and wise. He would not agitate against the new turn taken in the Vatican’s Ostpolitik under John XXIII[18], and adopted by Paul VI, yet he would always remain suspicious regarding the communist authorities as well as the position of the Moscow Patriarchat under Soviet rule. On the side of the Vatican officials, an openly hostile stance against communism was no longer accepted, and the distinction between the ideology rejected and the person holding it would become central in Vatican policy.

In the course of the next days, Slipyj has other important meetings : in the late afternoon of September 27, 1963, together with Metropolitan Hermaniuk, who had led the Ukrainian Bishops Conference in recent years, the Metropolitan discussed the program of his first meeting with the Ukrainian Greek Catholic episcopate scheduled the next day. Whereas initially, Hermaniuk reports, Slipyj showed himself undecided or even reluctant to reassume leadership and act as the head of the Bishop’s conference, ultimately he conceeded. During that first meeting Slipyj immediately sought to strengthen the organization of the Episcopal Conference by imposing on its members an oath of secrecy, and installing as a rule that any decision voted by a two-third majority would henceforth be considered as binding. The concern was to preserve the unity among Ukrainian hierarchs, but at this juncture the complexity of Slipyj’s position as the “returned leader” was suddenly on the table: Metropolitan Senysyn went on to question both the need for secrecy and the binding character of voted decisions[19]. The next day, Slipyj would enter the conciliar realm…

 

 

Metropolitan Slipyj Becomes A Council Father

 

On September 29, a new episode of Vatican II starts with a solemn procession. During its tumultuous opening period, Vatican II had chosen direction in the ecclesiological field, and had been a council ruled by the episcopate.  As of this day the council fathers gathered under the governance of another Pope. For the Ukrainian faithful, the momentum was grand, with Slipyj participating in the procession, surrounded by and reunited with his colleague bishops. Yet, it was also hurtful that the television broadcast of the opening paid ample attention to the presence of Moscow’s observors, but failed to mention the highly symbolic fact of Slipyj’ presence. On the next day, the Metropolitan silently occupied his seat in St. Peter’s Basilica – n° D0022. The heroic confessor Slipyj was now one among over two thousand council fathers… and once again, on this first day of general congregation, chairman Agagianan failed to notify his presence to the fathers[20]. For the Ukrainians, the matter was clear: any utterance that might disturb Moscow was carefully avoided by the Vatican.

 

It remains difficult to asses the Metropolitan’s precise role at Vatican II. The Council’s second period alone counts a multitude of memorable moments, involving his “active participation”. On need but think of the audience Paul VI granted to some 200 Ukrainians on October 18, 1963[21], where Slipyj held a strong patriotic speech. Nevertheless, at Vatican II, he was not part of any council commission or Secretariat, and therefore did not share in much of the “official” process of drafting and revising council texts. And, having arrived only for the second council period, some of the crucial directions for Vatican II were already taken. The debate on the liturgy, so important for the UGCC was already completed, and as of the second period this already required the local bishops conferences to reflect upon their reception of Sacrosanctum Concilium. I will not go into this in detail, but time and again the Ukrainian Conference of Bishops devotes itself to the revision of the Ukrain Liturgical books and prayers.

Talking about the liturgy, one cannot forget the occasion granted to Slipyj, on October 29, 1963, to concelebrate the “byzantino-ucrainus ritus” – as the Council booklets described it – before the Council, together with Bishops Isidore Borecky and Jaroslav Gabro. And there’s more still: an event worthwile pondering is the placing of the relics of St. Josaphat in St. Peter’s Basilica, with the Pope’s participation. The event was initiated by Slipyj[22]. Met. Hermaniuk noted in his diary on November 25, 1963:

 

17:00 – the solemnity at the altar of St. Basil the Great in St. Peter’s Basilica on the occasion of the deposition, on the 22^nd of this month, of the relics of St. Josafat. The Holy Father Paul VI himself participated in this unique solemnity, modo privato. Eighteen of our bishops, presided by Metropolitan Confessor Most Rev. J. Slipyj, celebrated a Moleben to St. Josafat.[23]

 

From the outset: the picture is double: many a festive occasion, but as for as influence on council texts or the council’s program is concerned, the image is much less clear. At this juncture, not much more is found than the Metropolitan’s official council speechs. That said, his major occupation during Vatican II was that of streamlining the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Conference of bishops at the Council. In what follows, we will consider both: his role as the head of the episcopal conference, and his council interventions. At the same time, a clear thread runs through the Metropolitan’s activities: his care to prevent his church from latinizing tendencies within an overall Latin Council, all the while underlining its distinct position over against the (Russian) Orthodox. In all of this, one element plays the central role: Slipyj’s hope to see the Metropolitan see raised to the rank of an Ukrainian Greek Catholic Patriarchate.

 

 

Leading the Ukrainian Conference of Bishops at Vatican II

 

The story of the Ukrainian episcopate at the Council is worth a monograph in itself, so I will merely present some points that are of importance here. First and foremost: the question of the patriarchat divided the bishops from the very first day. Metropolitan Senyshyn’s opinion, along with that of other Basilians, was clearly antipatriarchal, and on other occasions too, he was seen representing a more ‘latinizing’ tendency among the diaspora bishops. For instance, during the bishops’ meeting of October 4 1963, the episcopate discussed and rejected a letter by Senysyn contesting the aformentioned secrecy vows[24]. While such occasions already illustrate the tensions, the question of the patriarchate raised most of the objections.

 

On October 10, 1963, for the first time, Josyf Slipyj was to address the Council fathers. In fact, the Metropolitan, when being called to the speakers stance – and receiving applause even before ever uttering a word – did not have his text with him[25]. Nevertheless, he presented this initial speech on that day to the episcopal conference, which, on that evening, took some interesting decisions: For one, a Joint Pastoral Message was to be prepared, its redaction confided to Met. Hermaniuk; Second, Ukrainian bishops planning to speak on behalf of the Conference of Bishops were required to notify the secretary, Neil Savaryn, beforehand. This would streamline the actions of the episcopate[26].

Metropolitan Slipyj’s speech of October 11, 1963, consisted of four major parts[27]: it opened with an appraisal of the Council’s work, saying grace to God for the occasion of Vatican II, and then went on to sketch the history of the participation of Kyivan Metropolitans at Ecumenical Councils. Third, Slipyj entered the ecclesiological discussions. At that point, he insisted heavily on the papal prerogatives over against the college of bishops, somewhat opposing episcopal collegiality to papal primacy. The intervention, at this point, reveals something of the theological positions of the Metropolitan, linked strongly with his ideas on the identity of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church: however a community of its own right within Catholicism, adherence to the pope is at the heart of his church’s identity. The theological tension this causes is resolved somewhat differently by some bishops from the diaspora. In particular Met. Hermaniuk of Winnipeg revealed himself a strong advocate and even one of Vatican II’s pioneers in defining episcopal collegiality, somewhat lessing the centralist ecclesiology that had shaped Catholicism after Vatican I. Hermaniuk made the claim that precisely an emphasis on the role and importance of the bishops is closer to the Eastern tradition of synodality[28], and so ties his ecclesiological position to the identity of the UGCC in quite another way than Slipyj[29]. One is struck to see both the Vatican II minority and majority position with regard to the collegiality doctrine defended within the Ukrainian hierarchy, each with a legitimizing reference to the particular Ukrainian tradition.

Last, but certainly not least, Slipyj made an unequivocal petition to the Council to establish the Kyiv-L’viv Patriarchate[30]. His petition did not go unnoticed: Msgr Willebrands, for instance, indicated to be seeking a mandate from the Vatican to arrange for the Metropolitan to return to L’viv. Willebrands had also noticed the surprise of Russian observers Borovoj and Kotliarov[31], who though it more appropriate instead to speak about the establishment of the L’viv Patriarchate. A patriarchate of Kyiv raised objections, and from the perspective of the Moscow Patriarchate the establishment of a “uniate” patriarchate on its territory was unimaginable. And the obstacles were’nt confined to the Russian Orthodox side side. Msgr Cardinale from the Vatican State Secretariat was also informed of Slipyj’s speech. The State Secretariat made it abundantly clear to the Secretariat for Unity that there should be no more talk of establishing a Greek Catholic Kyiv patriarchate during the council meetings[32]. Clearly, both the Russian observers and the Vatican diplomats were bothered with the political implications of Slipyj’s request. Precisely these tensions gave rise to an increasing contact between the Metropolitan, exiled in Rome, with the Russian observers. It even led to a visit paid by Slipyj, accompanied by Willebrands, to the Russian embassy in Rome on November 7, 1963. Soon, negative reactions would rise from within the Episcopal Conference – reactions that would stretch far beyond the second period of Vatican II.

 

First, though, other events need to mentioned here. We will briefly mention two: First, Slipyj was also engaged in ecumenical endeavours, which are to be understood against his care for the Ukrainian faithful in a large sens. Given that another contribution at the present symposium is already devoted to the theme of Slipyj and ecumenism, I will not go into this at length. Still, one should point to the fact that hroughout the Council’s Second Period, Slipyj not only had regular contacts with the Russian Orthodox, but also made serious efforts to obtain the presence of Ukrainian Orthodox bishop Mystyslav Skrypnyk as an observer at Vatican II. This proved quite difficult, since Skrypnyk was willing to attend on his own initiative, but could not act as an official delegate from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. On several occasions one sees Slipyj intervening with Cardinal Bea on behalf of Skrypnyk[33]. A second topic is also quite interesting: Metropolitan Slipyj, in this period of time, starts raising the idea of establishing an Ukrainian Catholic University in Rome[34]. He unfolds his plans during the bishops meeting of October 17, 1963, and there is a sense of urge to it. But here too, the Metropolitan sparked an initiative that would have consequences for the period to come. Slipyj wanted to move fast, and immediately presented the bishops with a charter for the University – much inspired by the foundations he had laid out for the Theological Academy under Szeptyckyj[35]. In all probability, he acted too fast, for upon his request to sign the charter on the spot he was unable to find a majority. Several bishops judged the initiative immature and insufficiently adapted to the notion of a university in the west. Hermaniuk, who most of the time sided with Slipyj’s initiatives, wrote in his diary:

 

In my modest opinion, the proposed plan does not correspond to the idea of a university in the Western world. Probably the name of Ukrainian Scientific Institute, or Theological Academy would better suit this draft.

I was personally very sorry that we could not fulfil the expectations of our Metropolitan-Confessor. However, I have hope that this issue nevertheless can be solved somehow. The address of Most Rev. Avhustyn Hornjak, O.S.B.M., was rather unpleasant and perhaps impolite[36].

 

This made it all the more clear that the episcopal conference was far from a monolith. Nevertheless, the Ukrainian Catholic University of Pope St. Clement would be founded in Rome in 1963 with Slipyj as its first rector. This institute was regarded by Slipyj as the continuation of the Ukrainian Catholic Church’s Theological Academy in L’viv, founded in 1928 by Šeptyc’kyj, and closed by the Soviets in 1944.

 

 

A Peculiar Council Reception:

The Patriarchate Question and the Decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum

 

From the moment he returned to the free world, Josyf Slipyj faced opposition from the Basilian Fathers. The opposition was not new, it was grounded in events long before, dating back to the period before his incarceration, and to some extent belonging to the heritage of Andrej Szeptyckyj[37]. In 1963, and partially due to Slipyj’s actions to generate a broad support campaign among the Ukrainian diaspora faithful, as well as his contacts with the Russians, the opposition grew steadily. The Metropolitan’s presence at a reception in the Russian Embassy with ambassador Kozyrev, on November 7, 1963, on the occasion of the celebration of the 1917 Communist Revolution sparked strong reactions. A week after, the Italian periodical Il Borghese reported on his presence there. This gave impetus to an antagonism that went on after the closing of the Second Council Period on December 4, a few weeks only before Slipyj was designated the title of Archbishop Major by the Pope[38].

Slipyj insisted continually on the role he would assume as patriarch, and his authority over all Ukrainian Greek Catholics. Bishops Senysyn, Martynec, and Hornjak disagreed with him over this issue.  In particular Senysyn picked up on the Embassy visit, and in the course of 1964, polarization grew, while  others bishops, such as Bukatko, Sapeljak and Hermaniuk stood behind Slipyj and his dream. To illustrate, in February 1964, upon request of the Metropolitan, Maxim Hermaniuk prepared a letter to the pope, and also approached Cardinal Bea once again on the matter:

 

Today around 18:00 – in the evening I presented to His Eminence Cardinal Bea (who as chair of the Secretariat for Christian Unity is staying with us), the matter of the necessity of granting, by the Apostolic See, our Metropolitan Confessor J. Slipyj an appropriate dignity in the Church. For example, granting him the dignity of becoming the first Ukrainian Patriarch, simultaneously establishing the Ukrainian Patriarchate. The Cardinal asked me to give him a short memorandum concerning this matter, which he will present to the Holy Father next week. I promised to do this. God grant that this plan become reality[39].

 

When in mid-September, 1964, most of the bishops have returned to Rome for the opening of the Third Council Period, the agenda of the Bishops Conference is once more determined by the patriarchate issue. The immediate background was an article in the Svoboda-issue of September 11, entitled (English trans.): “Met. Senyšyn, Before Departing for the Council in Rome, Condemned Action on a Church Matter Without the Agreement of Church Authority.[40]”  In the article, Metropolitan Senysyn stressed his deep respect for Slipyj, but also cast doubts as to the origin and true nature of the gathering of signatures for a petition to the Holy Father for the creation of a patriarchate. And more, he and warned the Ukrainian clergy and faithful not to sign such petitions. This caused quite a stir[41]. During the meeting of the bishops of September 14, it eventually came to a secret vote: 13 bishops voted in favour of further actions in view of a patriarchate, 1 voted against, and one indicated that the time was not yet ripe. Later more press statements would follow, on which we will not focus here[42].

 

All of the above played in the back of Metropolitan Slipyj’s head when, on October 16, 1964, he offered his council speech regarding the schema De ecclesiis orientalibus[43]. I want to focus briefly on this intervention at the Council, since it is more important that what has been thought up until now. It brings together some themes, and is located within a discussion in the council hall that painfully marked the tensions among the Eastern Catholic Churches[44]. Naturally, Slipyj picked up on the Decree’s art. 11, which stated that new patriarchates ought to be established where needed[45]. Next, Slipyj acted preciesly against the coercion of Eastern Catholics into the Latin rite, warning against the risk that the Union of the Greek Catholics with Rome be seen only as a bridge towards latinization, and a river into the Latin Sea…[46] In the back of Slipyj’s head clearly played the latinizing tendencies of the Basilians in the Americas. Finally, he ended his speech with the notorious words ‘Miseremini Patres Conciliares, nobis, quia sumus Orientales’[47]. But apart from that, the document on which Slipyj commented here would become very important to him, indeed. On November 21, 1964, the closing day of the third Period, it was promulgated as the Decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum. Soon after the Third Period closed, Slipyj made it known to all the Ukrainian bishops that as of the Feast of Theophany 1965 the Decree would become binding. This rapid reception of the Conciliar Decree is not without a motive: In fact, Slipyj would use precisely its art. 23 as an argument in favour of his cause. Orientalium Ecclesiarum 23, a very concise text, reads:

 

It belongs to the patriarch with his synod, or to the supreme authority of each church with the council of the hierarchs, to regulate the use of languages in the sacred liturgical functions and, after reference to the Apostolic See, of approving translations of texts into the vernacular[48].

 

However short, this article conflates, with some vagueness, three elements: the role and jurisdiction of a patriarch, the right of the Eastern Churches to follow its own rite and customs, and the question of the “supreme authority” within the Eastern Churches. All three have their importance for the role Metropolitan Slipyj wished to play within the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Community at large – in particular the question whether the Metropolitan was to govern over metropolitan sees other than his own. Slipyj interpreted this very phrase as conferring equal rights to a “patriarch” as to the “supreme authority of each church”, which for him signified that he in fact had the patriarchal status, and that Rome could not refuse that status. During the third intersession and the Fourth Period of Vatican II, Slipyj would put pressure on the Pope with precisely this reference. He could use it all the more, since in early 1965, the authoritative title of the cardinalate was offered to him by Paul VI. Slipyj would be created cardinal at the consistory of February 22, 1965, and receive the red biretta on February 25, followed by an audience with the Pope, where Slipyj expressed the longing of the Ukrainian Catholics for unity with Rome throughout the centuries. Met. Hermaniuk formulated the importance of the cardinalate for Slipyj as such:

 

The Almighty has heard the petitions of our people and elevated, in the person of our heroic Confessor of the Faith, our entire Church and particularly that part which together with him has endured in the native lands all suffering, burdens and humiliations. God grant that this joyful event, so significant in the history of our Church, place an end to the disorder […]. This event is the closest step to creating our patriarchate. God grant that this happen rather soon. May there be sincere gratitude to the Almighty for this His new blessing for us.[49]

 

In fact, this attitude was well reflected in the fact that the Ukrainian bishops decided henceforth to use the title “Blažennišyj / His Beatitude” for Slipyj, a title formally given to Patriarchs. Still, the high hopes raised were not to be met. In the course of May 1965, the assessor of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, Msgr. Giovannelli, made it known that the interpretation of Orientalium Ecclesiarum offered by Slipyj was invalid. According to the Vatican officials “Cardinal Josyf Slipyj has no jurisdictional authority at all in our Church beyond the borders of the ecclesiastical province of Halyč. In liturgical matters, he probably could, personally or through someone else, have oversight of these matters, but he must refer everything for a decision by the Oriental Congregation[50]”. On top of this restrictive interpretation, another point was made. The Apostolic See strongly demanded the Ukrainian faithful to stop sending petitions to Rome concerning the creation of the patriarchate. On top of this, Slipyj suffered personnally from the news that the Vatican had conferred to Met. Senysyn the rank of Assistant to the Papal Throne[51]. But again, one sees that the problems come from various sides, not just the Basilians, the Vatican State Secretariat or the Oriental Congregation. Msgr. Willebrands from the Secretariat for Unity also notes some doubts, in his agenda on October 20, 1965:

 

Moi-même j’ai demandé [to Msgr. Dell’Acqua] où en était la question du patriarcat pour le card. Slipyj. Cela ne se fera pas; “sarebbe un disastro”. Le vrai problème c’est que les évêques ukrainiens cherchent un point central de référence pour leur église. Cela dépend d’eux-mêmes. Veulent-ils reconnaître Slipyj en tant que tel?[52]

 

 

Towards the End of the Council

 

In September 1965, Vatican II opened its fourth and final period. By the time the Council entered its last working session, the split within the Ukrainian community went deep, even causing political effects such as a split among the Banderivci fraction of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. On the other hands, when looking at the meetings of the episcopal conference, the bishops sought to collaborate more closely on important topics, devoting much of their time to the introduction of modern ukrainian in the Ukrainian liturgy, thus carrying out the Vatican II liturgical reforms in their own realm. The Metropolitan spent much time discussing the importance of the “Old Calendar”, again a way to preserve unity among his flock both in the Ukrainian home territory and the diaspora.

As a council father, Slipyj held several noted council interventions during this period. On September 16, for instance, the Metropolitan spoke in a rather appreciative way about the text on religious liberty, which was under strong attack by many of the Latin American and Spanish Bishops at Vatican II. This degree of openness from someone who had suffered personnally and deeply from the effects of intolerance and the lack of religious liberty from the side of communism – so feared by precisely the aforementioned bishops – made a deep impression, even if Slipyj speech lasted somewhat too long, and was interrupted by Cardinal Agagianian[53]. The question of Religious Liberty was tantamount to Slipyj, who had endorsed the principles laid out by John XXIII in his 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris without any hesitation, and had even carefully translated the encyclical into Ukrainian. The importance of the topic, and above all the insistence on the “freedom of coercion”[54], only really became obvious when later during this last Council period, on November 19, 1965. On that day, Slipyj and his colleague bishops issued a “Common Letter” explaining to the council fathers the relationship between religious freedom and the public order, which precisely under communist rule, was very problematic[55].

Offering long speeches appeared to have been one of the Metropolitan’s habits, since the same thing occurred at the end of Slipyj’s next council intervention, delivered on October 1, 1965. This time, talking about the Schema On the Church in the Modern World, Slipyj expressed his concern that the text was entirely focusing on the “Western” modern world and neglecting the problems of the East[56]. But the attention of th council fathers was raised more, when Slipyj was reminded twice by the moderating Cardinal Suenens that his time was up. The Metropolitan carried on, and started citing Suenens, who in turn reacted with the quip: Gratias pro citationibus, sed velis concludere [57]. The entire event caused some laughter in the Council Hall.

Finally, before coming to some conclusions, we should mention Slipyj’s continuing initiatives to address the Ukrainian faithful as a whole. In that sense, he strongly supported the tradition of the Episcopal Conference to draft Joint Pastoral Letters, informing the flock of the council, and explaining its importance for the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Community. This is important, for more than anything, it shows the particularity of the Ukrainian episcopate within the group of the council fathers[58], but also how they insisted on taking the heritage of Vatican II at heart. In this, Slipyj shared without any reticence, as he pushed further and carefully followed each step in the process of drafting the Common Pastoral Letter on the Council. Notwithstanding some obstructions, on December 6, 1965, the Letter was signed by all members of the Ukrainian Hierarchy present in Rome[59]. With it, the delicate process of conciliar reception was to take its start, but that falls outside of the limits of this contribution[60].

 

 

Conclusions

 

By means of closing thoughts, a few things can be said: Initially, the actions of Josyf Slipyj at Vatican II may have caused some surprise among both members of the Ukrainian hierarchy and Vatican officials. The return of the Metropolitan of Kyiv-Halyč after eighteen years of confinement by the Soviets forced him to re-invent himself, and his surroundings. The combined context of Slipyj being in a “second exile” and the often fast and tumultuous evolutions at the Second Vatican Council made this all the more complex. Hence, the Metropolitan’s rapid adaptation proved to be a difficult process, both on the level of Slipyj’s pastoral endeavours and hopes – raising the Kyiv See to the rank of a patriarchate, securing seminary and university education for Ukrainian Greek Catholics, safeguarding the byzantine character of his community in the diaspora… – and the theological level. Slipyj’s theological vocabulary had not evolved sufficiently to make it fit for some of the theological battles fought at the Council[61], although he did engage in various debates, ranging from the one on religious liberty, over the ecclesiological debates, until the topic of the Eastern Churches. In much of his speeches, as prof. Jan Grootaers has pointed out, Slipyj’s perspective was politico-ecclesiastical rather than theological. On the Roman front, his concern was to keep his church out of the centralizing grip of the Vatican forces, while on the side of the Ukrainian side: he was keen on safeguarding the Eastern character of his church, steering it away from latinizing tendencies. All of this made for a difficult and at occasions personnally painful role to play. Surely, the Metropolitan’s suffering had not ended with the journey from Moscow to Rome. Looking back at all of this, one cannot but admire the force and intensity with which he acted during Vatican II.

 

 

[1] Katholiek Documentatie Centrum (Nijmegen, The Netherlands): Private papers Willebrands, 199: Notes on the release of Met. J. Slipyj, 1994, 3p. In it, Willebrands refers to the book by Sergio Trasatti, La croce e la stella (Milan, 1993).

[2] Jaroslav Pelikan, Confessor Between East and West. A Portrait of Ukrainian Cardinal Josyf Slipyj (Grand Rapids MI, 1990).

[3] Leo Declerck (ed.), Les agendas conciliaires de Mgr. J. Willebrands, secrétaire du secrétariat pour l’Unité des chrétiens, (Leuven, 2009).

[4] Karim Schelkens & Jaroslav Z. Skira (ed.), The Conciliar Diary of Metropolitan Maxim Hermaniuk C.SS.R. (1911-1996). Critically Annotated Bilingual Edition, (Leuven, 2012).

[5] An interesting account of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic participation in the Second Vatican, was published shortly after Vatican II by Walter Dushnyck, The Ukrainian-Rite Catholic Church at the Ecumenical Council 1962-1965 (New York NY, 1967).

[6] The only UGGC bishop to have published a full account of the council is Andrij Sapeljak, Ukraïns’ka Cerkva na II Vatukans’komu Sobori (Rome-Buenos Aires, 1967). On p. 72 of his book, Sapeljak accounts how the bishops felt the absence of Slipyj. In their first group picture, in Slipyj’s absence they placed a large portrait of him in the center of the photo.

[7] On Slipyj’s liberation, see Ivan Choma, Storia della liberazione del metropolita Josep Slipyi dalla prigiona sovietica, in Intrepido Pastore (Rome, 1984), pp. 323-47; Giancarlo Zizola, L’Utopia di Papa Giovanni (Assisi, 1973³), pp. 205-6.

[8] For a survey, see my recent study on Slipyj’s release: Vatican Diplomacy After the Cuban Missile Crisis. New Light on the Release of Josyf Slipyj, in Catholic Historical Review 98 (2011), 680-713.

[9] The detail is not found in any source, and was told to the author by a family member of Card. Willebrands, Mrs. Lies Willebrands.

[10] The relationship between Rome and the communist world has been the subject of various excellent studies, such as those by HansJakob Stehle, Geheimdiplomatie im Vatikan: Die Päpste und die Kommunisten, (Zürich, 1993), and Andrea Riccardi, Il Vaticano e Mosca, 1940-1990, (Rome & Bari, 1992). On the Russian Orthodox Church under communist rule, see Dimitri Vladimirovich Pospielovsky, The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime 1917-1982, 2 vols. (New York, 1984); Bohdan Rostyslav Bociurkiw, The Formulation of Religious Policy in the Soviet Union, in James E. Wood (ed.) Readings on Church and State (Waco TX, 1989), pp. 303-18; and also John Anderson, Religion, State and Politics in the Soviet Union and Successor States (Cambridge MA, 1994).

[11] Schelkens, Vatican Diplomacy After the Cuban Missile Crisis; and Trasatti, La Croce e la stella, pp. 188-189.

[12] Norman Cousins, The Improbable Triumvirate: An Asterisk to the Hopeful Year 1962-1963 (New York, 1972). Also see the archive dossier in Archives Archdiocese of Mechelen-Brussels: Personal Archives Suenens, box 20: Voyage États-Unis. Papiers Cousins-Morlion.

[13] Schelkens & Skira (ed.), Diary Hermaniuk, February 20, 1963.

[14] Cf. Schelkens & Skira (ed.), Diary Hermaniuk, February 25, 1963: “Today I received news from Most Rev. Ivan and Very Rev. Fr. Krajevs’kyj from Rome regarding their contacts with Met. Josyf Slipyj. Met. Josyf is keeping well, from the looks of the letter of Most Rev. Ivan Bučko, and here the game of large stakes is playing out between the Apostolic See and the Soviet regime. God grant that the freedom of our Church and of the entire Ukrainian people finally arrive. Today I decided to travel to Rome, to meet personally with Metropolitan Kyr Josyf.”

[15] Cfr. Alberto Melloni, L’Altra Roma: Politica e S. Sede durante il Concilio Vaticano II, 1959-1965 (Bologna, 2000).

[16] At that time, no Ukrainian Greek Catholics were represented in the Secretariat for Christian Unity, and Met. Hermaniuk expressed his hopes to have Slipyj appointed as a member. Instead, at the end of the Second Period, Hermaniuk himself was elected into the Secretariat. Slipyj was appointed a member to the Congregation of the Oriental Churches (not of the Conciliar Commission, however) by the Pope. See Dushnyck, The Ukrainian Rite Catholic Church, p. 46.

[17] Leo Declerck (ed.), Agendas Willebrands: September 26, 1963: “11 h 30 – 12 h 30 : Visite de Mgr Slipyj pour Arrighi, Duprey et moi-même.”

[18] On the evolution of the Vatican Ostpolitik, also see the recent book by Philippe Chenaux, L’église catholique et le communisme en Europe, 1917-1989. De Lénine à Jean-Paul II (Paris, 2009).

[19] Schelkens & Skira, Diary Hermaniuk, September 28, 1963: “When all the bishops were already gathered in the salon of the College (downstairs) I escorted in Metropolitan Kyr Josyf Slipyj, whom the bishops greeted with loud applause. After a prayer I welcomed our dear Metropolitan-Confessor in the name of our Bishops Conference and invited him to assume the leadership of our conference. Metropolitan J. Slipyj briefly expressed his thankfulness and seemingly stated, that if we desire that our Bishops Conference successfully function, we have to:

1. Swear an oath to maintain
2. Regard decisions of the conference having two-thirds of the votes as binding.

On this point, immediately an unpleasant discussion unfolded, led by Metropolitan Ambrosij [Senyšyn]. The oath was taken, but the second point was deferred.”

[20] For Agagianian’s opening words, see AS II/1, pp. 213-214.

[21] Reported in L’Osservatore Romano 243, October 20, 1962, under the heading “L’augurio paterno di Sua Santità al Movimento Cristiano Ucraino”, p. 1.

[22] The occasion of the martyr’s celebration and the transfer of his relics to St. Peter’s Basilica – initiated by Slipyj – caused a negative stir among the Russian Orthodox observers, who threatened to leave the Council. See Diary de Lubac, Vol. II, November 29, 1963; and also Emmanuel Lanne, La perception en Occident de la participation du Patriarcat de Moscou à Vatican II, in Alberto Melloni (ed.), Vatican II in Moscow 1959-1965 (Leuven, 1997), pp. 121-122.

[23] Schelkens & Skira (ed.), Diary Hermaniuk, November 25, 1963.

[24] Schelkens & Skira (ed.), Diary Hermaniuk, October 4, 1963: “16:30 – the second meeting of our Bishops Conference in the College of St. Josafat presided over by Metropolitan J. Slipyj. Following my advice, completely suppressed was the letter of Metropolitan Ambrosij (Senyšyn) against the oath of bishops regarding the preservation of secrecy of our deliberations”.

[25] Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II [henceforth AS], II/2, p. 393. The Council Acts indicate that Slipyj – announced as Archiepiscopus Leopolitanus Ucrainorum – was applauded by the congregation even before he attempted to speak. Also see Neophytos Edelby, Il Vaticano II nel diario di un vescovo arabo. Ed Riccardo Cannelli (Milan, 1996), p. 167: “Il presidente dell’assemblea annuncia in seguito un intervento di mons. Slipyj, metropolita ucraino di L’vov, liberato dalla prigione l’anno precedente. Ma questi, per ragioni sconosciute, si scusa. Verrà ascoltato domani. La sala nondimeno vibra di applausi commossi per questo confessore della fede.”

[26] Schelkens & Skira (ed.), Diary Hermaniuk, October 10, 1963: “It was decided today:

1. To prepare the draft of a Common Pastoral Letter (I was to take care of this issue).
2. Bishops who would like to speak at the Council in the name of all of our bishops should notify the secretary of the Conference Most Rev. Nil’ Savaryn.
3. Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj read for the bishops the text of his speech tomorrow at the Council.”

[27] See the speech in AS II/2, pp. 442-446. Slipyj’s speech was summarized differently by G. Caprile’s chronicle (part II, p. 86), in Il Concilio Vaticano II: Cronache del Concilio Vaticano II, V Vols., (Rome: 1966-1969). According to Caprile the highlights of the speech were: the expectation that the Council would reflect on atheism and on social issues; the statement that the Pope’s mission is directly dependent upon Christ and, therefore, the Pope supersedes the college of bishops; there are arguments in favour of, but also against, the reformation of the diaconate. Slipyj ends his speech with a plea to elevate the Metropolia of Kyiv-Halyč to patriarchal status.

[28] See the study by Bernard M. Daly, Maxim Hermaniuk: Canadian Father of Collegiality at Vatican II … and After, in Gilles Routhier (ed.), Vatican II au Canada: Enracinement et réception (Montréal, 2001), pp. 427-439.

[29] Cf. Edelby, Il Vaticano II, p. 209: “Il metropolita Slipyj ha fatto un intervento poco chiaro. Ha voluto fungere da conciliatore tra partigiani e oppositori della collegialità episcopale e di un consiglio universale di vescovi attorno al papa.”

[30] For a brief history of patriarchal movement in the Ukrainian Catholic Church, see Vasyl Markus, The Role of the Patriarchal Movement in the Ukrainian Catholic Church, in David J. Goa (ed.), The Ukrainian Religious Experience: Tradition and the Canadian Cultural Context (Edmonton, 1989), pp.157-170; Also see Thomas E. Bird & Eva Piddubcheshen (ed.) Archiepiscopal and Patriarchal Autonomy (New York, 1972), as well as the article by the Basilian M. Vojnar, Projekt konstytuciï patriarchatu Ukraïns’koï cerkvy, in Bohoslovija 34 (1970), pp. 5-39.

[31] Declerck (ed.), Agendas Willebrands, October 22, 1963: “12 h: Conversation avec Borovoj au Secrétariat. Sa crainte des développements ultérieurs en ce qui concerne Slipyj et l’attitude de celui-ci, qui a des implications politiques.”

[32] Declerck (ed.), Agendas Willebrands, October 13, 1963: 8 h 30: “Father Long téléphone: Mgr Cardinale a téléphoné hier au sujet de l’intervention de Mgr Slipyj concernant la restauration du patriarcat de Kiev. Selon Mgr Cardinale il ne faut plus faire mention au concile du patriarcat de Kiev, sa signification étant purement historique et non politique.”

[33] Declerck (ed.), Agendas Willebrands, October 23, 1963: “Mgr Slipyj téléphone au sujet de l’invitation à Skrypnyk. Les évêques ukrainiens lui ont demandé d’aller chez le pape. Il ne veut pas mais il me demande de faire quelque chose. Je lui en parlerai demain”; Also see on October 24: “Au Secrétariat, parlé avec Father Long au sujet d’un arrangement possible de la question Skrypnyk. Conversation avec Mgr Slipyj à Saint-Pierre; il a déjà vu le card. Bea. Il écrira lui-même à Skrypnyk. Après son arrivée à Rome, nous verrons.”

[34] Schelkens & Skira (ed.), Diary Hermaniuk, October 17, 1963: “17:00 – consultation of the Ukrainian Bishops Conference at the College of St. Josafat. Most Rev. Met. J. Slipyj presented to the bishops his own plan for establishing a ‘Ukrainian Catholic University’ in Rome. Discussion ensued. A majority of bishops stated support for the idea of studying the question of establishing such a university, yet only seven declared support for the immediate signing of the founding charter. When it came to a vote there were only 9 votes in favour and 5 against.”

[35] On Slipyj’s concern for theological education, see Pelikan, Confessor Between East and West, pp. 133-140. The Theological Academy was re-established in 1994, subsequently becoming the Ukrainian Catholic University.

[36] Schelkens & Skira (ed.), Diary Hermaniuk, October 17, 1963.

[37] Among some of the Basilians there was a tendency to refer to the exemptio of the Order in order to escape the authority of the bishops. This constituted a difficulty for the principle of the collegiality of bishops, one of the major issues on the conciliar agenda. As a result of a reform in 1882, the Basilian Order had become more centralised. Later on, attempts were made to retrieve less strict structures: Metropolitan Šeptyc’kyj tried in the 1920s to return to the traditional structures of monastic life in Ukraine, and he reproached the Basilians’ attempts to ‘latinize’ the liturgy. Slipyj also reacted against the influence of the Basilians, who were dissatisfied with Šeptyc’kyj’s announcement that Slipyj would be his successor. Cf. Pelikan, Confessor Between East and West, pp. 126-127, 186-188; also see Cyrille Korolevskij, Le prophète ukrainien de l’unité: Métropolite André Sheptyc’kyj (1865-1944) (Paris, 1964) [2^nd edition in 2005], pp. 260-277.

[38] See the official decree conferring this title, in AAS 56 (1964), p. 214.

[39] Schelkens & Skira, Diary Hermaniuk, February 28, 1964.

[40] Cf. Svoboda, 170 (September 11, 1964).

[41] Cf. Sapeljak, Ukraïns’ka Cerkva, pp. 250-253.

[42] In its issue of January 8, 1965, The Ukrainian Weekly, 4/LXXII, carried the full text of an interview that Senyšyn gave on Dec. 26, 1964, to the editors from Ameryka and Svoboda, among others, in which Senyšyn affirmed that, according to Vatican II, the Ukrainian Catholic Church has the right to a patriarchal status, though he is opposed to the campaign of petitions. He also indicated that now may not be the best time for a patriarchate because a number of Ukrainian Orthodox hierarchs object to it, and because it would further divide the Ukrainian churches. He also admitted that he has had differences of opinion with Slipyj, though he still respected him. He also denied that he had aspirations of being named the Ukrainian Catholic Church’s next patriarch.

[43] AS III/5, pp. 9-43. A broader study of the relevance and importance of the Decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum for the UGCC was published by Victor J. Popishil, Orientalium Ecclesiarum: The Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches of the II Vatican Council: Canonical and Pastoral Commentary (New York, 1965).

[44] Edelby, Il Vaticano II, p. 258: Il dibattito di questa mattina a San Pietro, sebbene in generale favorevole all’Oriente, ha anche mostrato delle divergenze abbastanza profonde tra i padri orientali su alcuni problemi. Il vescovo maronita di Sarba, mons. Doumith, ha attacatto a fondo lo schema, chiedendo il suo dislocamento e la sua ripartizione in altri schemi. Mons. Ghattas, copto, ha chiesto l’unificazione della giurisdizione, come d’altra parte mon. Doumith ha chiesto, contrariamente al suo patriarca, che si proibisca la latinizzazione dell’Oriente. Mons. Zoghby ha ugualmente fatto un importante discorso, ma di carattere piuttosto dogmatico. Il discorso più impressionante è stato quello di mons. Slipyj; che ha condotto un attacco a fondo contro la latinizzazione dell’Oriente. Pronunciato da un confessore della fede, questo discorso aveva qualcosa di veramente toccante.”

[45] In the same council period, a warm plea for the establishment of new Patriarchates was held by the German Benedictine abbot Hoeck, and highly welcomed by the majority of the Ukrainian bishops. See his intervention in AS III/5, pp. 788-805, esp. p. 793, under the header “De Patriarchis”.

[46] AS III/5, pp. 19-21, p. 21: Denique tali actione funesta timendum est ne acatholici orientales deterreantur cum ipsi sibi persuadeant, se suas Ecclesias, suos fideles, suos ritus et saepe saepius, nationem suam, se uniendo cum Ecclesia catholica, perdere posse. Quod repetunt nunc non solum fideles orthodoxi, set etiam athei autumantes nostram Unionem esse tantum pontem et tramitem ad latinizationem et evacuationem in mari latino.”

[47] AS III/5, pp. 19-21, p. 21: “Miseremini ergo nostri, venerabiles Patres, quia orientales sumus, et adiuvate nos, ut nostram missionem in Ecclesia catholica alte implere queamus.” Cf. Sapeljak, Ukraïns’ka Cerkva, p. 225, who simply reports Slipyj’s request for assistance for the Eastern Catholics in the Church’s mission, which he does in the context of discussing the unfortunate history of the attempts of the West’s latinization of the East.

[48] Decretum Orientalium Ecclesiarum, in AAS 57 (1965), pp. 76-89.

[49] Schelkens & Skira (ed.), Diary Hermaniuk, January 25, 1965.

[50] Schelkens & Skira (ed.), Diary Hermaniuk, May 11, 1965. The discussion would be carried further, when on October 16, 1965, Met. Hermaniuk visited Card. Testa at the Oriental Congregation, asking “that the Apostolic See resolve the question of the Suprema аuctoritatis in our Church, and grant His Eminence Cardinal J. Slipyj, as Major Metropolitan, the authority over all our metropolia and exarchates in Ukraine and outside of Ukraine.”

[51] Schelkens & Skira (ed.), Diary Hermaniuk, May 13, 1965: “18:00 – a visit at Cardinal Slipyj’s. He, despite his great moral suffering and humiliation, is keeping well. He has hope for the victory of truth and justice. The elevation of Metropolitan A. Senyšyn to the dignity of Assistant to the Papal Throne does not yet end the matter.”

[52] Declerck, Agendas Willebrands, October 20, 1965.

[53] AS IV/1, pp. 236-239.

[54] See Dushnyck, The Ukrainian Rite Catholic Church, who cites Slipyj on p. 67: “Future generations will be in admiration of this phase of the work of Vatican II. It would be well to stress the opportuneness of the doctrine of religious liberty in view of present-day religious persecutions, lest the document seem to be only academic and theoretical. Freedom from coercion is necessary for the Church but it is likewise necessary for the welfare of every state, in order that its citizens not be saddled with insupportable burdens.”

[55] This letter, signed by all the Ukrainian diaspora bishops, was distributed to all Council Fathers on the eve of the Council’s vote on the Declaration on religious freedom, on November 19, 1965. The document is found in the Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Conc. Vat. II, 1450.

[56] AS IV/3, pp. 101-142.

[57] Slipyj’s speech is found in AS IV/3, pp. 106-110..

[58] On the Ukrainians at Vatican II, see the study by Myroslav Tataryn, Canada’s Ukrainian Catholics and Vatican II: A Guide for the Future or Struggling with the Past?, in Michael Attridge, Catherine Clifford & Gilles Routhier (ed.), Vatican II: Expériences canadiennes – Canadian experiences (Ottawa, 2011), pp. 239-252

[59] The original Ukrainian text is found in Blahovisnyk, 1/1 (1965), pp. 3-24.

[60] On the postconciliar reception of Vatican II reforms by the UGCC, see Peter Galadza, The Reception of the Second Vatican Council by Greco-Catholics Ukraine, in Communio: International Catholic Review, 27 (2000), pp.312-339,

[61] This was also noted already during the Council by the Melkite bishop Neophytos Edelby, in his diary. See Edelby, Il Vaticano II, p. 154: “[Slipyj] è un grande amico nostro, anche se su alcuni punti la sua teologia ecumenica resta – a nostro avviso – un po’ troppo classica. Non bisogna dimenticare che da diciassette anni è rimasto tagliato fuori da ogni contatto con la teologia moderna. Ci siamo lasciati con una totale comprensione.”

Remembering Pope John Paul II

Leonid D. Rudnytzky

April, 2021

 

In my rather long life, I have had the good fortune to meet many extraordinary people — luminaries of scholarship, writers and poets, artists, diplomats, presidents, as well as spiritual leaders of various nations and denominations.

One of them is now a saint. That person is Karol Wojtyla, known to the world today as Saint Pope John Paul II.

I had the privilege of interacting with His Holiness on three continents — Australia, North America, and Europe — each time learning more and more about the man who was to become the Vicar of Christ. While these meetings imbued me with greater faith in God and made me – I think – a better person, they were not without humor.

In 1978, I was a professor of German and Slavic Languages and Literatures at La Salle College (later University) in Philadelphia. I was sitting in the faculty cafeteria with some colleagues when La Salle’s News Bureau Chief at that time, Bobby Lyons (1939-2013), burst into the room to announce that a new Pontiff had been elected, but nobody knew anything about him. This was before the Internet; information was less readily available than now.

My reaction to the news that it was Karol Cardinal Wojtyla was an elated “I know him!” and then things really began to happen.

My first mistake was revealing my acquaintance with the new Pope; and my second, talking indiscriminately with all the reporters sent my way. I became instantly an object of interest, almost a celebrity. My television interview was tastefully done, and Philadelphia community response to it was most favorable: a number of my colleagues congratulated me, and even La Salle’s President, Brother Patrick Ellis, F.S.C. (1928 -2013), expressed a few kind words. However, one look at the front page headlines of the Philadelphia Journal of October 17, 1978, was enough to make me want to deny the whole thing: the headline was “POLISH POPE: PHILLY’S PAL” and the pal, as I found out on page five, was I. Yes, the article on page five left no doubt about it: “La Salle prof is Papal pal.” In addition, the first paragraph made sure that the headlines were not just simply sensationalism, I quote: “La Salle Professor Dr. Leo D. Rudnytzky was stunned yesterday when he heard the news. A friend of his— Karol Cardinal Wojtyla of Poland had incredibly just been named Pope!” I was stunned all right, but more by the sensational journalism than by the fact that I really did know His Holiness, Pope John Paul II. “Papal pal” was not exactly that sort of label I would have chosen, especially when it did not apply, but some people will do anything for the sake of alliteration.

I first met His Holiness Pope John Paul II (then Karol Cardinal Wojtyla) at the Fortieth Eucharistic Congress held in Melbourne, Australia in February 1973, but I did not become acquainted with him until we met in Cambridge, Massachusetts on July 27, 1976. At that time, I was a guest professor for Ukrainian Literature at Harvard University and Cardinal Wojtyla had been invited by the administration to deliver a lecture for faculty and students. Recognizing the name from the Eucharistic Congress, I naturally decided to attend his lecture on Marxism, which was entitled “Participation or Alienation?” I remember sitting in front row and waiting for the speaker, with my paper and pencil ready to take notes. However, once the lecture began, I became so immersed in the discourse that I promptly forgot to write things down, and as a result, almost everything I retell here is from my notoriously unreliable memory. The Cardinal read in grammatically impeccable English a fascinating paper on the grave moral issues of the 20^th century. In it he took to task the Marxist notion that “men are reducible to creatures of social, political, and economic structures,” explained that even some Marxists themselves “have pointed out that revolutionary transformation of society can bring about new forms of alienation,” and went on to consider these forms in greater detail. The more I listened the more I became impressed with his mastery of the Marxist dialectic and his knowledge of contemporary philosophical trends. Resonances of Max Scheler’s philosophy reverberated in his words as well as the thinking of the existentialists. But all this, I felt, was modified by the “Personalism” of a Jacques Maritain, the Christian Existentialism of a Gabriel Marcel and integrated through the Catholic Weltanschauung of the speaker himself. At all times too, there was a scholarly clarity and wholesome lucidity in his delivery which made his presentation, despite the inherent complexities of the topic, easy to follow.

Following the lecture, there was a wine and cheese reception during which some members of the audience approached the Cardinal and chatted with him briefly. I was one of those, except that my conversation with him was of a greater duration than that of other people, because I spoke to him in Polish. The Cardinal, I could sense, was delighted to hear somebody speak his native tongue (even if it was spoken rather poorly). In fact, he was so pleased, that he complimented me on my Polish, supplying a word here and there whenever I got stuck. I mentioned to him that the conclusion of his paper struck me as somewhat Thomistic, perhaps more than the arguments made in its body warranted, and he smiled gently and said: “You’re probably right.” By that time I began to feel at ease in his presence and before I knew it, we were discussing over white wine, among other things, the state of Catholicism in the world, the persecution of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the Soviet Union and the spiritual leadership of its Patriarch Josyf Slipyj, my work as a professor, and the concept of a Catholic University. I found him to be amazingly well informed on all kinds of current issues as well as on various areas of scholarship. He expressed genuine interest in my work in German-Ukrainian literary relations and asked me if I had done any work on Polish-Ukrainian literary ties. Upon hearing that I was planning to deliver a lecture at the Catholic University of Lublin the next year (a plan which never materialized), he invited me to visit him in Cracow, and to impress upon me the fact that he meant it, he extended the invitation again, when we saw each other the next day, at the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute.

Two years later, he became Pope John Paul II, and I could proudly proclaim urbi et orbi, I know him! This chance (or providential) meeting in Cambridge as well as my work for the Patriarch of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, Josyf Cardinal Slipyj, led to several encounters with His Holiness. I knew the Pope had a phenomenal memory, but I was most surprised and delighted when, during my first audience in the Vatican, he pointed his finger at me and said, “I know this gentleman—Harvard University, isn’t it?” This, after his seeing millions of people, was truly extraordinary. “No, Your Holiness, La Salle,” I responded, and explained: “I did have the honor of meeting Your Holiness at Harvard in 1976, where we were sort of missionaries,” which brought a smile to his face. Honores mutant mores, an old Latin proverb tells us, but this was definitely not the case with Karol Wojtyla. There was no trace of pride in him, only loving, human kindness expressed most poignantly in his message to all of us: “Do not be afraid.” If anything, he was more humble after his election to the See of Peter. His human warmth was constantly with him. When, at one general audience in St. Peter’s Square, my at-that-time teenage daughters screamed at him in Ukrainian, “Our father says hello.” He smiled, waved back, and replied: “Say hello to him from me.”

The Holy Father also was not inured to criticism. When, at one time, I thanked him for interceding on behalf of the persecuted Ukrainian Catholics in the Soviet Union, he asked with some concern, but also with a touch of satisfaction, “But did you read how the French newspapers criticized me?”

My brief encounters with the Holy Father left me with a great sense of satisfaction. At that time of course, I did not suspect that I had been speaking with a future Saint; but, as I recall, I savored the pleasant, rewarding experience of having talked with an erudite man, whose thoughts were both intellectually stimulating and spiritually uplifting. There was no doubt in my mind that I was in the presence of a man of God, who had successfully integrated faith with reason, experience with aspiration, and who stood on firm philosophical ground while at the same time conscious of his limitations as a human being.

As a man, he was, like all of us, fallible. As a Pontiff, he was awe-inspiring. His exceptional quality of character enabled him to stand firm against certain currents of our times, and yet divinely surf the tides of our common historical experience. Spanning two centuries, with a plethora of humankind’s unprecedented inventions, innovations, and confounding technological advancements, including the advent of the much-vaunted information revolution—he was uniquely in tune with both the spiritual needs and the worldly necessities of our age. He was, without doubt, the right man, at the right time. In the end, I came to think of him as a sort of “papal pal,” with an altogether different meaning than those sensational headlines intended.

“God needs good people in heaven,” says an old Ukrainian proverb. I find solace and comfort in these simple words. Having labored and suffered and having accomplished so much for the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth, John Paul II has gone to his Maker, to ensured and blessed eternal peace.

 

Sources

Rudnytzky, Leo D. “Past Encounters with a Future Pope.” La Salle Magazine 23.1 (Winter 1978-1979), 17-18.

Rudnytzky, Leo. D. “Farewell to a Pontiff.”  La Salle Magazine 49.1 (Spring 2005), 20-21.

Sorry, this entry is only available in Українська. For the sake of viewer convenience, the content is shown below in the alternative language. You may click the link to switch the active language.

Документальний фільм “Справа “Рифи” | Блаженніший ЙОСИФ СЛІПИЙ

Sorry, this entry is only available in Українська. For the sake of viewer convenience, the content is shown below in the alternative language. You may click the link to switch the active language.

Спомини Патріярха Йосифа