Understanding the Old Country Part 3: Ukrainian nationalism and Orthodoxy

 

As I've previously related, Ukrainian nationalism is inextricably tied to Uniatism and a tendency to go into schism.

So besides Uniatism and the Papist roots of proto-Ukrainian statehood, what else is heterodox about Ukrainian nationalism?   A simple answer:  It throws away the vision and identity of "Holy Russia" and puts in its place a Uniate national idea - an idea that always gains outside support from western powers.

A more precise and philosophical answer: 

Its Anti-Monarchism and its rebuke to the Orthodox East.  A very appropriate theological articulation of Tsarism was given by a martyred hierarch of Kiev.  Here is a quote from the New Martyr St. Vladimir, Metropolitan of Kiev, during his trial by the Bolsheviks.  He was commenting on the Revolution:

“A priest who is not a monarchist is not worthy to stand at the altar table. The priest who is a republican is always a man of poor faith. God himself anoints the monarch to be head of the kingdom, while the president is elected by the pride of the people. The king stays in power by implementing God’s commandments, while the president does so by pleasing those who rule. The king brings his faithful subjects to God, while the president takes them away from God.” 

And St. Vladimir the New Martyr echos ancient fathers such as Eusebius of Caesarea: 

“Monarchy is superior to every other constitution and form of government. For polyarchy, where everyone competes on equal terms, is really anarchy and discord.”

You can find other patristic quotes along these lines.

To be clear though, I would like to make a distinction:  There is a difference between living in a society like America, where there is no state monarchy, a place whose earliest roots were Anglo Saxon settlers possessing the Anglo Saxon mistrust of authority, during an age of new political theories in their home country which continued to develop in the New World; versus living in a place like pre-revolutionary Russia, where an Orthodox monarchy was established.  There was a deliberate rebellion against this rightful authority by Ukrainianists.  And today their narratives continue to denigrate it, undermining the witness of the Orthodox Church.

Why this matters today is because the narratives of Ukrainianists stand in the way of restoring a proper Christian monarchy to Russia and Ukraine.  But more importantly than that, these narratives oppose traditional Orthodox governance and ethos in general.  When you make that the official narrative in the second largest country in the Orthodox world, you have a problem.  This is a long-term consideration.  One of the reasons why Ukrainianism is a darling of the west, and enjoys continued support, even with my own tax dollars, is because it is anti-monarchical.  Ukrainian nationalist rhetoric views the Tsar as an evil doer, instead of as the rightful Orthodox ruler of All Rus.  It violates the Old Order of Christendom and embraces Liberalism.  It rejected the rightful Tsar of the Rus and sought to replace him with a western style republic.  It rejected the reunion of the Russias, and substituted a Uniate or "Orthodox Lite" state.  Today, Russia is not a monarchy, but it could be again one day after more development.  The national narrative of Russia puts things on a course back toward Tradition, whereas Ukrainian national narratives undermine it and send things in the opposite direction.

Ukrainianism pushes Ukraine toward a so called "European future."  They see Ukraine as developing in the same Progressive social pattern as western European (heterodox) countries.  They argue that Ukraine was always a "free" country whereas Muscovites were/are slaves.  This is not true at all, and is a later retcon of history.  Very telling is that fact that there were numerous rebellions against the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth in both Ukraine and Belarus from 1596 onward.  And yet after the Partitions of Poland and reunion of the Russias, rebellions by the ancestors of today's Ukrainians and Belarusians were rare.

Likewise, New Martyr St. Vladimir's successor, Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev, also suffered, and was imprisoned by Ukrainian nationalist leader Symon Petliura, when the Ukrainianists took over Kiev and formed their short-lived state.  Metropolitan Antony later  served as a ROCOR Metropolitan after evacuating with White Emigres.  He was a man of great holiness and obedience to Tradition during his career as a hierarch.  He had a fascinating life, and I would strongly recommending reading more about him.

What does this have to do with right now?  The process that is unfolding at the moment is the destabilization of the region and spread of hatred.  Who is guilty?  One party?  I think not.  But for certain, there are forces that set up this situation and prevent something better.

I would also bring up, that most people in ROCOR, including their hierarchs, both past and present, essentially believe what I believe.  That jurisdiction was more vocal about it than our historic OCA (Russian Metropolia) people, because they tended to be more educated, more political and many had fought the communists.  ROCOR was and is far more interested in articulating traditional Russophila than the OCA.  And yet, as with the OCA, ROCOR was actually dominated by hierarchs with roots in what is now Ukraine, namely: 

 

1. Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral) who died recently.  His parents immigrated to Canada from Volhynia, in western Ukraine.  His first language in the home was Ukrainian, and he learned Russian later in life.  And yet he considered himself a Russian man, and essentially articulated the "Russian World."

2. St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco was from Kharkov.

3. Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko) 

4. Archbishop Alypy (Gamanovich)

Remember, ROCOR was always more Russophilic and more Tsarist than the OCA.  Yet it was and is dominated by people rooted in what's now Ukraine!