The Activities of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church Under the Soviet Totalitarian Regime and the Second Vatican Council

Abstract

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was officially liquidated by the Soviet authorities at the L’viv Pseudo-Council of 1946. However, the clergy and faithful who remained loyal to their Church formed an underground church structure. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the underground Greek Catholics had special hopes for the revival of the UGCC. This was due to the easing of repression in the USSR after Stalin’s death and the preparation and convening of the Second Vatican Council. It was at this time that Pope John XXIII managed to secure the release of the head of the UGCC, Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj, who had spent 18 years in the Soviet labor camps and exile. At that time, many suspicions and accusations arose among the clergy and faithful of the underground UGCC due to insufficient information about the actions and decisions of the Council. In those years, a movement emerged that later grew into an apocalyptic sect (“Pokutnyky”). Ecumenical talks between the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church, the issue of patriarchal status for the UGCC, ritual disputes, and so on also caused a lot of discussion among the Greek Catholics in Ukraine. This paper is an attempt to provide a better understanding of the perception of the Vatican II decisions by underground Greek Catholics within their struggle for the existence and revival of their Church.

1. Introduction

The Second Vatican Council became one of the most important events in the history of the Catholic Church in the 20th century. Many of its decisions are still being implemented in the life of church communities. No doubt, its influence on the development and activity of the Eastern Catholic Churches was decisive. A peculiarity was that during the preparation, conduct, and implementation of the Council’s decisions, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine was under persecution and prohibition. The communist regime established in Western Ukraine at the end of World War II did not want to tolerate the Greek Catholics’ rights to free religious recognition. According to the Ukrainian historian from Canada, Bohdan Bociurkiv, there was a “fundamental incompatibility” between the Soviet authorities and the UGCC, since this Church was Ukrainian, contributing significantly to the formation of the modern national identity of Ukrainians; it was Catholic, that is, it emphasized its connection with the Apostolic See and Western civilization; and it also became an important spiritual guide for several generations of Ukrainians, opposing itself to the atheistic Soviet system (Bociurkiw 1996, p. ix).

This paper aims to present and analyze the conditions in which Greek Catholics in Ukraine found themselves during the Second Vatican Council. The main source for this study was the interviews with the participants of the UGCC underground from the archives of the Institute of Church History of the Ukrainian Catholic University in L’viv. The interviewing of the witnesses began in 1992 in the context of the oral history project “Profiles of Fortitude: A Living History of the UGCC’s Underground Life, 1946–1989”, initiated by Borys Gudziak, the eventual Metropolitan of Philadelphia (UGCC). The interviewers very often asked about the respondents’ attitude to the Second Vatican Council, its impact on the underground life of the UGCC, the implementation of the Council’s decisions, etc. This paper also applies thematic materials from several state archives, such as the Sectoral State Archive of Security Service of Ukraine, the collection of the Plenipotentiary under the Council of Ministers of the Ukrainian SSR (fond 4648) of the Central State Archive of the Higher Authorities and Administration of Ukraine, and holdings of regional plenipotentiaries of the state archives of Western Ukraine. The academic works by Petro Galadza (Galadza 2001), Roman Skakun (Skakun 2015), Yaroslav Stotskyi (Stotskyi 2009), Mykyta Sorokin (Sorokin 2021), Anatolii Babynskyi (Babynskyi 2018), Maria Ivaniv (Ivaniv 2021), and Natalia Shlikhta (Shlikhta 2023), which cover various topics of relations between the Vatican, Greek Catholics, and the USSR, the impact of conciliar decisions on UGCC activities, and the Greek Catholic underground peculiarities were important for this study.

2. UGCC Before Vatican II

As a result of the Soviet authorities’ repressive pressure, the UGCC officially “ceased its existence” at the non-canonical L’viv Council on 8–10 March 1946, by the proclaimed “reunification” with the Russian Orthodox Church. At that time, the whole Greek Catholic hierarchy, headed by Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj, had been arrested for eleven months. The Greek Catholic clergy faced a choice between signing the conversion to Orthodoxy with the opportunity to continue their pastoral work or not signing and facing inevitable repression. Due to their resistance to the forced “Orthodoxisation”, many Greek Catholic priests were arrested and sentenced to long prison terms. The process of ‘reunification’ covered the whole of Western Ukraine, whose territory became a part of the USSR. Thus, besides the L’viv, Stanislaviv, and a part of the Peremyshl eparchies (the other part was in Poland), Greek Catholics of the Mukachevo eparchy were also subjected to forced “Orthodoxisation”. The Mukachevo Greek Catholic diocese was historically independent of the UGCC and had a direct connection with the Apostolic See. The liquidation of the union in the Transcarpathian region had certain peculiarities. In particular, the Soviet state security authorities first assassinated Bishop Theodore Romzha (1 November 1947). Then, on 28 August 1949, they announced the liquidation of the ecclesiastical Unia of Uzhhorod without holding a Council (Pahirya 2015, pp. 446, 460).

Undoubtedly, one of the main reasons for the liquidation of the UGCC was its canonical connection with the Pope of Rome. Soviet state security, the main directors of this liquidation process, emphasized precisely the rejection of uniting the Apostolic See and the transition to ROC jurisdiction. The Moscow Patriarch Aliexii Simanskyi, shortly after the arrest of the Greek Catholic hierarchy, in his appeal to the clergy, the Greek Catholic believers, and the people of Western Ukraine, accused the Pope of collaborating with the Nazis and added that the UGCC should escape from such a church connection as soon as possible: “Break, destroy the ties with the Vatican. The Vatican is leading you into darkness, into spiritual destruction, thanks to its religious errors, and now it wants to arm you against all freedom-loving humanity, wants to turn your back on the whole world. Hurry up and return to the arms of your dear mother, the Russian Orthodox Church!” (SSASSU, Sectoral State Archive of the Security Service of Ukraine (ГДA CБУ, Гaлузевий держaвний aрхiв Cлужби Безпеки Укрaїни), fond 65, case C-9113, vol. 21, p. 442a)1.

Father Gavryil Kostel’nyk, one of the leaders of the Initiative Group for the Reunification of the UGCC with the ROC, persuaded priests to renounce Catholicism and convert to Orthodoxy. In one of his reports, he said: “That is why we are conducting our action in such a way that … we are undermining the papacy and will continue to do so”. He constantly emphasized that his goal was “to defeat faith in the papacy” among the Greek Catholic clergy (Serhiichuk 2006, vol. 2, p. 136). The priests constantly rebuked Kostel’nyk for betraying the Catholic Church. For example, Father Illia Blavatskyi, an opponent of “reunification with ROC”, indignantly addressed the leader of the Initiative Group: “You are trying to refute Roman dogmas and convince us that they are false, but it is very difficult for us to convince ourselves. And how dare you to desecrate the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth—the Pope!” (Serhiichuk 2006, vol. 2, p. 183).

After the death of Josyf Stalin in 1953, because of the political revision of the Soviet regime, most of the repressed Greek Catholic priests received amnesty and, in 1954–1958, began to return to Western Ukraine. The weakening of state pressure allowed the clergy to continue their priestly ministry in an underground existence. For example, at a meeting of the Council for ROC Affairs on 25–26 October 1957, in Moscow, concern was expressed about the intensification of activities in the Western Ukrainian regions of Greek Catholic priests, most of whom had returned from the forced labor camps and began their underground pastoral work. Soviet officials were also dissatisfied with the attempts of underground Greek Catholics to influence “formally reunited” ROC priests who remained loyal to the Vatican and return them to the bosom of the Catholic Church (SALR, State Archives of L’viv Region (ДАЛО, Державний архів Львівської області), fond R-1332, description 2, case 25, pp. 299–302).

It should be noted that in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the GCC in Ukraine managed to organize its underground structures, namely, Greek Catholic secret communities functioned, underground monasteries operated, and priest ordinations were held. Despite the death of most bishops and the continuous imprisonment of Metropolitan Slipyj, it was possible at least to establish the partial functioning of the hierarchical structure. Thus, during 1956–1959, Assistant Bishop Mykola Charnetskyi, released from the camps, worked in L’viv, Bishops Ivan Sleziuk, Symeon Lukach, and Ivan Liatyshevskyi worked in Stanislaviv, and Oleksandr Khira worked in Uzhhorod (Hurkina 2009, p. 57).

At that time, the anti-religious campaign proclaimed by the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Mykyta Khrushchov, hit the official ROC, both in quantity and quality, as it not only lost churches, seminaries, and monasteries, but also had many restrictions imposed on its pastoral work (Stotskyi 2008, pp. 273–74). The underground priests, although closely monitored by the authorities, tried to take advantage of this turn in communist policy by creating new underground cells and using closed churches for their services (Bociurkiw 1993, pp. 133–34). However, despite the persecution from the Soviet state, the ROC only increased its presence in the external forum. Obviously, one of the important areas of the Moscow Patriarchate representatives’ activity was the development of relations with the Holy See.

With the beginning of the pontificate of Pope John XXIII, the Vatican’s policy towards the Soviet Union changed somewhat. The new Pope sought to establish diplomatic relations with the communist authorities, emphasizing in his official documents the importance of peace and the responsibility of politicians to history. Khrushchov responded quite positively to such calls, believing that “Western imperialists” should listen to the Pontiff (Sorokin 2021, p. 119). The convening of the Second Vatican Council was also perceived in the world as a good opportunity to begin the process of unifying Christians. Therefore, it was logical for the organizers of the Council to invite representatives of other Christian denominations, including the Russian Orthodox Church, with which the Vatican also had complicated historical relations. During the pontificate of Pope John XXIII and his successor Pope Paul VI, relations between the two Churches improved. For example, the chairman of the Council for Religious Cults under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, Alexei Puzin, in one of his reports in 1964, spoke positively about the policy of Pope John XXIII towards communist countries, and the proof of this was the absence of anti-communist appeals at the Council or the announcement of “crusades” against the communists. However, he criticized the Holy See for supporting Greek Catholics and, according to him, the position of the Soviet authorities on this issue was “unchangeable” (SALR, State Archives of L’viv Region (ДАЛО, Державний архів Львівської області), fond R-1332, description 2, case 36, p. 126).

In fact, against the backdrop of all these political, diplomatic, and inter-church conversations, the issue of the Head of the UGCC, Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj, who could not attend the Council because he was serving his second sentence in Soviet camps, arose. According to the plan of Pope John XXIII and Vatican diplomats, the “case of Slipyj” was to become an unofficial part of peaceful diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.

3. “The Case of Slipyj”

Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj was arrested on 11 April 1945, by the People’s Commissariat of State Security, in the L’viv region and later taken to prison in Kyiv. He and another four Greek Catholic bishops were accused of “implementing the anti-Soviet policy of the Vatican and the instructions of the German-fascist leadership circles they were associated with. For a number of years, they actively carried out subversive work against the USSR, and during the period of temporary occupation of Ukraine by the German-fascist invaders, they actively supported their activities in their favor” (SSASSU, Sectoral State Archive of the Security Service of Ukraine (ГДA CБУ, Гaлузевий держaвний aрхiв Cлужби Безпеки Укрaїни), fond 6, case 68069, vol. 7, pp. 181–92). On 3 June 1946, the military court tribunal of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Ukrainian District in Kyiv sentenced him under Article 54-1 “a” of the Criminal Code of the Ukrainian SSR to 8 years in labor camps and 3 years of restriction of rights with confiscation of property (SSASSU, Sectoral State Archive of the Security Service of Ukraine (ГДA CБУ, Гaлузевий держaвний aрхiв Cлужби Безпеки Укрaїни), fond 6, case 68069, vol. 7, p. 256). While serving his sentence, he was repeatedly transferred from one labor camp to another. After the end of his term, he was taken to Moscow to persuade him to cooperate with the Soviet authorities and involve him in establishing relations with the Vatican. Metropolitan Slipyj was allowed to visit libraries and museums and engage in academic activities. He began writing an outline of the history of the UGCC and an essay on relations between the USSR and the Vatican and possible ways of reconciliation. However, after the arrest of the Minister of Internal Affairs Lavrenty Beria, who had initiated the invitation of Slipyj, the Metropolitan was sent back into exile to a nursing home in the village of Maklakovo, Yenisei District, Krasnoyarsk Territory, in Russia. There, the Metropolitan continued his historical research. He also managed to establish an underground pastoral ministry and secretly wrote several letters to the clergy and faithful of his Church. Such an activity of the Metropolitan did not go unnoticed by the state security. He was under constant surveillance by the Krasnoyarsk KGB department. On 19 June 1958, Metropolitan Slipyj was arrested for the second time. He was once again accused of anti-Soviet activities, which consisted of attempts to revive the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine. The Metropolitan was sentenced to 7 years of correctional labor camps a year later. Subsequently, due to the fact that Slipyj “did not embark on the path of correction” (SSASSU, Sectoral State Archive of the Security Service of Ukraine (ГДA CБУ, Гaлузевий держaвний aрхiв Cлужби Безпеки Укрaїни), fond 6, case 68069, vol. 10, p. 506), the Judicial Board in Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Ukrainian SSR recognized him, by decision, as a particularly dangerous criminal “recidivist”. Such a cruel decision was taken due to the Metropolitan’s refusal to cooperate with the Soviet regime and his constant attempts to defend the rights of Greek Catholics as well as demands to legalize the GCC in Ukraine.

Against the background of all Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj’s wanderings, the movement for his release was intensified in the free West. Obviously, the Ukrainian diaspora constantly reminded the world community about Metropolitan Slipyj’s sufferings from repression and persecution. Undoubtedly, during the preparation of the Second Vatican Council, the Ukrainian episcopate emphasized that their Head of the Church would not be able to take part in the Council sessions. Archbishop Ivan Buchko, the most senior among the Ukrainian bishops, appealed to the Apostolic See with a request to assist in the release of the “Great Absent One”, as the press began to call Slipyj according to the Ukrainians’ suggestion (Horyacha 2015, p. 344). During the Second Vatican Council’s opening, the Pope mentioned the bishops absent because they were “imprisoned for their fidelity to Christ and exiled” (Hermaniuk 2012, p. 23). The Ukrainian bishops counted on the Vatican’s assistance in the matter of Metropolitan Slipyj’s release.

For the representatives of the UGCC, along with that unpleasant fact, there was the presence of two observers from the Russian Orthodox Church, who arrived at the Council as guests of the Secretariat for Christian Unity. At the same time, the Vatican tried to establish good relations with the USSR and the Russian Orthodox Church. Against the backdrop of the Caribbean crisis, Pope John XXIII offered his help in de-escalating the confrontation between the West and the Soviet Union. The first unofficial negotiator was the American journalist Norman Cousins, an editor of the newspaper “Saturday Review” and a close friend of US President John F. Kennedy. On 13 December 1962, Cousins met Mykyta Khrushchov in Moscow, where, besides other issues, he raised the issue of the release of Metropolitan Slipyj. Although the communist leader reacted rather negatively to such a proposal, he promised to consider the issue (Horyacha 2015, p. 351).

The Pope’s request for the release of Metropolitan Slipyj was also transmitted through the Russian Orthodox observers at the Council: the report of Archpriest Vitalii Borovoy reached the top party leadership. It should be said that the Holy See emphasized that the release of Slipyj was a humanitarian act, a step towards reconciliation which would not have any anti-Soviet manifestations (Horyacha 2015, pp. 354–55). All these measures influenced the Soviet authorities and, in the end, on 12 January 1963, Metropolitan Joseph Slipyj was liberated by a decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Late in January, he was taken to Moscow, while he was forbidden from going to L’viv. In his memoirs, Slipyj recalled that his main question for his oppressors was “does his release mean the return of freedom to the Greek Catholic Church?” (Slipyj 2014, p. 227)

After arriving in Rome and several months of recuperation, Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj participated in the Second Vatican Council sessions during 1963–1965; he was appointed a member of the Council Commission for the Affairs of the Eastern Churches. His appeal to the Council Fathers to elevate the UGCC to the status of a patriarchate was significant. It should be said that it was not realized. However, the Holy See still recognized the Ukrainian Greek Catholics: on 23 December 1963, the UGCC was proclaimed a Major Archbishopric, and on 22 February 1965, Josyf Slipyj received the title of Cardinal.

In the West, however, Josyf Slipyj encountered numerous problems with regard to the leadership of the UGCC, as he could not fully perform the duties of the Major Archbishop. In particular, he constantly insisted on his right to hold synods of bishops whose decisions would be mandatory. The Apostolic See refused his requests because, according to the canon law of the time, he had authority only within his ecclesiastical province, which was under Soviet occupation, and the Church was in the catacombs (Marksteiner-Mishchenko 2018, p. 269). On the other hand, despite the great respect for his personality, Josyf Slipyj failed to unite all the bishops and clergy in the Ukrainian diaspora around him. As Metropolitan Maksym Hermaniuk of Winnipeg wrote in his diary, Josyf Slipyj was very worried about the steps of some bishops who tried to pursue their own policy towards the Vatican, ignoring the proposals of the Major Archbishop of the UGCC. Metropolitan Maksym recalled that Slipyj instructed him to write a letter to the Pope about the “chaotic state of our Church” (Skira 2012, pp. 117–20). It should be noted that despite the Vatican’s non-recognition of the patriarchal status of the UGCC, Josyf Slipyj proclaimed himself Patriarch in 1975. However, this step by the Head of the Church was not welcomed by some of the Greek Catholic bishops and clergy (Babynskyi 2018, pp. 337–38).

Despite all of the difficulties and failures, Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj’s arrival in the West was an impetus for Ukrainians in the diaspora. Father Ivan Datsko, Slipyj’s close collaborator, analyzed that his stay in the West motivated Ukrainians to a church–religious awakening and restrained their national assimilation. The figure of the confessor of faith, the voice of the “Silent church” in the free world, and its spokesman before authoritative international institutions became a uniting factor (Teodorovych 2007, p. 14). It is important that, for the West, Patriarch Josyf Slipyj became a symbol of the martyred Church whose faithful were suffering for their faithfulness to the Holy See (Pashchenko 2002, p. 258). Until Slipyj’s death on 7 September 1984, in Rome, he made a huge contribution to the development of the UGCC in the diaspora, and he also constantly cared about the fate of Greek Catholics in Ukraine, emphasizing the need for the legalization of the Church (Bublyk 2013, pp. 152–57).

4. Hierarchical Structure in L’viv

The prohibition for Metropolitan Josyf to visit L’viv and the need to leave for the West immediately after his release from the camps left the issue of the Greek Catholic hierarchy unresolved in the L’viv Archdiocese. However, Slipyj managed to solve this problem. While staying in Moscow for several days, he summoned the Redemptorist hieromonk Vasyl Velychkovskyi by telegram and ordained him a bishop as his deputy locum tenens on 4 February 1963 at the Moscow Hotel.

It should be said that at that time, L’viv had a lack of bishops. The Stanislaviv (now Ivano-Frankivsk) eparchy was led by Bishop Ivan Slezyuk, who had served two terms in Soviet camps (1946–1954, 1962–1968). He was secretly ordained by Bishop Hryhoriy Khomyshyn before his arrest on 11 April 1945. In fact, after serving the sentence, Bishop Mykola Charnetskyi, Apostolic Exarch of Volyn, Polissia, and Pidliashiya, returned to the city of L’viv in 1956. He managed to activate the underground activities of the Greek Catholic clergy, religious, and faithful, but did not ordain any new bishop. After his death in 1959, the L’viv archeparchy was led by administrators Frs. Adrian Zafiiovskyi, Volodymyr Hrytsai, and Ivan Chorniak, and hieromonk Vasyl Velychkovskyi. For example, according to the reports of local KGB officers, Fr. Zafiiovskyi, as a leader, grouped Greek Catholic priests who had returned from imprisonment around himself, gave them advice in the field of underground pastoral care, emphasized the importance of working individually with believers, especially children, and explained to people the need to write requests to Moscow regarding the legalization of the UGCC (SSASSU, Sectoral State Archive of the Security Service of Ukraine (ГДA CБУ, Гaлузевий держaвний aрхiв Cлужби Безпеки Укрaїни), fond 2, case 2832, pp. 3–4). KGB operatives tried to limit the activities of Fr. Zafiiovskyi by pressure on his son, a Professor at the Polytechnic Institute in L’viv (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Yurii Zafiiovskyi, 16.04.1995, L’viv. P-1-1-527, p. 20).

A newly ordained bishop, Vasyl Velychkovskyi, was an influential figure in the Catacomb Church. He served a 10-year term in the Vorkuta camps, and after his release in 1955 he actively pastored in Western Ukraine. The state security agencies characterized him as “a kind of fanatic, obsessed with the idea of reviving the Uniate Church in Ukraine and not susceptible to influence. When in a difficult situation, he uses provocative actions” (SSASSU, Sectoral State Archive of the Security Service of Ukraine (ГДA CБУ, Гaлузевий держaвний aрхiв Cлужби Безпеки Укрaїни), fond 65, case C-9113, vol. 21, p. 21). Bishop Velychkovskyi especially intensified his underground activities during the preparation and convening of the Second Vatican Council. He convinced like-minded people that it was the best time to achieve the legalization of the UGCC in the Soviet Union. The KGB knew about his ordination as a bishop in Moscow and therefore closely monitored his actions. Already in 1964, a series of arrests and searches were carried out in the houses of active Greek Catholics, including Velychkovskyi. However, state security was unable to stop the underground activities and liquidate the Greek Catholic hierarchical structure. Bishop Velychkovskyi also made sure that there were several bishops in L’viv who were his assistants and could substitute for him at the time of his arrest or death. For example, on 2 July 1964, Bishop Velychkovskyi ordained his fellow Redemptorist Volodymyr Sterniuk as a coadjutor bishop, and the KGB officers quickly learned about this (SSASSU, Sectoral State Archive of the Security Service of Ukraine (ГДA CБУ, Гaлузевий держaвний aрхiв Cлужби Безпеки Укрaїни), fond 65, case C-9113, vol. 33, p. 20). Bishop Velychkovskyi also initiated the “seizure” of churches closed by the Soviet authorities for underground Greek Catholic services. He was accused of influencing the “reunited” priests to return to the UGCC (SSASSU, Sectoral State Archive of the Security Service of Ukraine (ГДA CБУ, Гaлузевий держaвний aрхiв Cлужби Безпеки Укрaїни), fond 65, case C-9113, vol. 33, p. 20). Bishop Velychkovskyi was arrested for the second time on 29 January 1969. He was later sentenced to three years of imprisonment. After serving his sentence, Bishop Velychkovskyi left for the West, where he died on 20 June 1972. Thus, Archbishop Volodymyr Sterniuk performed the duties of the locum tenens of the Head of the UGCC in Ukraine until 1991 (Dmytrukh 2007, p. 31).

5. Peculiarities of Underground Existence

According to the observations of the local communist party authorities, the release of Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj and the Second Vatican Council undoubtedly influenced the activities of the Greek Catholic underground. For example, the Plenipotentiary of the Council for the Affairs of the ROC, Atamanyuk, reported that in the Ivano-Frankivsk region, Greek Catholics, in connection with the Second Vatican Council, began to spread rumors about the imminent revival of the UGCC. Such information was of great importance to the population, especially against the background of Khrushchov’s anti-religious policy with the closure of Orthodox churches and numerous restrictions for the official Orthodox clergy. For example, in the Ivano-Frankivsk region, 110 ROC communities were deregistered in 1963 alone (CSAHAAU, Central State Archive of the Higher Authorities and Administration of Ukraine (ЦДАВО, Центральний державний архів вищих органів влади та управління України), fond 4648, description 3, case 287, p. 29). Such measures of the Soviet authorities encountered resistance in Western Ukraine from the Orthodox clergy, the majority of whom were former Greek Catholics (163 priests out of 208) (CSAHAAU, Central State Archive of the Higher Authorities and Administration of Ukraine (ЦДАВО, Центральний державний архів вищих органів влади та управління України), fond 4648, description 3, case 287, p. 17, 22). A similar situation was observed in other Western Ukrainian regions. For example, in the L’viv region, 142 communities were deregistered in 1963 (CSAHAAU, Central State Archive of the Higher Authorities and Administration of Ukraine (ЦДАВО, Центральний державний архів вищих органів влади та управління України), fond 4648, description 3, case 287, p. 122).

Restrictions against the official ROC added opportunities for the underground UGCC. In general, in the early 1960s, more than 270 underground priests and about 700 monks and nuns lived in the L’viv, Ivano-Frankivsk, and Ternopil regions (Stotskyi 2009, p. 6). It should be noted that it was in the late 1950s and early 1960s that Greek Catholic monasteries resumed accepting candidates for the novitiate (Stotskyi 2009, pp. 16–17).

The beginning of the 1960s in Ukraine was also marked by the intensification of Soviet atheistic propaganda. Atheist education was spread through educational, social, scientific, and cultural institutions. “Soviet rites” were introduced, which were supposed to replace the religious traditions popular among the local population. For example, the Plenipotentiary of the Council for Religious Cults in the L’viv region reported on 7 July 1964 that the region needed to introduce new traditions, holidays, and rituals in order to distract the population, especially the youth, from the Church and religion. He argued that despite the great religiosity of the region, more and more people were turning to “Soviet rites” (SALR, State Archives of L’viv Region (ДАЛО, Державний архів Львівської області), fond R-1332, description 2, case 36, pp. 75–79). The influence of such steps was felt, with priests discussing this in private conversations; Fr. Yurii Vanchytskyi, an Orthodox dean and rector of one of the churches in L’viv, claimed in a private conversation that “it feels like the propaganda of atheism is working. We see fewer and fewer worshipers in churches” (CSAHAAU, Central State Archive of the Higher Authorities and Administration of Ukraine (ЦДАВО, Центральний державний архів вищих органів влади та управління України), fond 4648, description 3, case 287, p. 122). Also, the repressive pressure on the underground clergy did not stop at this time. Arrests, criminal prosecutions, searches, and confiscation of property occurred. Thus, in the late 1950s, priests Anton Kaznovskyi and Pavlo Vasylyk (the future bishop) were arrested, and in the early 1960s, bishops Ivan Sleziuk, Symeon Lukach, and others were arrested too (Stotskyi 2009, pp. 11–12).

The constant pressure of the authorities on the ROC in the region and the changes that took place in the Catholic Church in the preparation and holding of the Second Vatican Council had interesting consequences for the Greek Catholics in the underground. In particular, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there were cases of returning some “reunited” priests to the jurisdiction of the UGCC. For example, Fr. Ivan Shulym, who joined the ROC after the L’viv Pseudo-Council, served in parishes until 1950; later he was arrested and sentenced to 10 years in camps, and after being released he refused to serve again as an Orthodox priest and went into the Greek Catholic underground, working as an accountant in one of the L’viv museums (SALR, State Archives of L’viv Region (ДАЛО, Державний архів Львівської області), fond R-1332, description 2, case 35, p. 15). Fr. Ivan Ratych also converted to Orthodoxy, but that did not save him from repression—he spent nine years in special settlements in remote areas of Russia, and after returning to Halychyna, under the influence of his brothers–priests, who were not “reunited”, he repented and became an underground pastor (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Iryna Kraykivska, 07.04.1993, L’viv. P-1-1-183, p. 8). Fr. Ivan Nahurskyi, who served in the L’viv churches, continued serving according to the “Uniate rite” and eventually refused to “reunify” and returned to the UGCC for underground service (SALR, State Archives of L’viv Region (ДАЛО, Державний архів Львівської області), fond R-1332, description 2, case 35, p. 13). The story of another priest is interesting—Fr. Julian Rudkevych was a long-time parish priest in the village of Leshniv, in the Brody District. According to state security records, he said to Fr. Gavryil Kostelnyk at a deanery meeting of priests on 4 August 1945 that “religion is not a glove that can be taken off and put on again. We must re-study your books and convince ourselves that we have been wrong for 40 years of our conscious life” (SSASSU, Sectoral State Archive of the Security Service of Ukraine (ГДA CБУ, Гaлузевий держaвний aрхiв Cлужби Безпеки Укрaїни), fond 65, case C-9113, vol. 23, pp. 145–46). However, he was later “reunited”, although there was a belief among the priest’s relatives that Fr. Rudkevych did not sign the transfer to the ROC, but that his parishioners did it for him in order not to lose a good priest. He was arrested and served about five years in Stalin’s camps. After his return, he continued his priestly ministry. In 1963, he retired and then publicly in the church of the village of Leshniv renounced Orthodoxy, telling the parishioners, “That’s it … I want to die as a Greek Catholic priest… I thank God that I’m done with Orthodoxy” (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with fr. Mykola Markevich, 17.03.1993. Mykolaiv. P-1-1-337, p. 59; AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Hanna Dmytruk, 20.09.2004, L’viv. P-1-1-1618, pp. 9, 13). At the same time, he met the underground bishop Volodymyr Sterniuk, who accepted him back into the UGCC.

At that time, there were cases when priests, while remaining in Orthodox parishes, secretly revoked their “reunification” and actually acted as Greek Catholics. Obviously, such facts were not reflected in the documents, but the testimonies of people close to such pastors can be found. Thus, Fr. Ivan Kinash, a priest in the village of Ushkovychi, Peremyshliany District, although serving as an Orthodox until his death in 1981, nevertheless, according to the testimony of a parishioner, revoked the “reunification” and was considered a Greek Catholic among his relatives (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Hanna Klapchuk, 25.07.2006, Peremyshlyany. P-1-1-1851, pp. 7–8). Fr. Julian-Myron Prystash, a long-time parish priest in the village of Moloshkovychi in the Yavoriv District, who, although he protested the activities of Fr. Kostelnyk, later “reunited”. In 1948–1955, he served his sentence in the camps of Mordovia, and after his release he continued his pastoral work. According to witnesses, he commemorated the Pope during the service and did not introduce Orthodox rites; therefore, he was considered a secret Greek Catholic (Prach 2015, vol. 1, p. 326). Father Vasyl Koliasa, a priest from the Lemko region (now the territory of Poland), who in 1945 was resettled to the village of Sokolya in the L’viv region, was registered there as an Orthodox abbot. Later, he renounced Orthodoxy and collaborated with the underground clergy. In his home chapel, hieromonks of the OSBM were performing services (Prach 2015, vol. 1, p. 562). It should be said that the method of returning to the UGCC imposed certain restrictions on priests, since they had to commemorate the Pope and the Catholic hierarchy, as well as avoid joint services with the Orthodox bishop and priests. Obviously, such cases testified to the “formality” of transferring Greek Catholic priests to the ROC and showed the gap between the desire of the Moscow Patriarchate leadership and the reality of church life in the western regions of Ukraine. For example, the Ukrainian researcher Natalia Shlikhta says that ‘reunification’ can be considered a form of adaptation, allowing local communities to preserve a certain identity (Shlikhta 2023, p. 132).

From the point of view of canon law, it was easier to return to the UGCC for those priests who retired and left the parish. For example, Fr. Mykola Kulytskyi, “reunited” in 1947, in the late 1950s completed his official ministry in the village of Poltva in the L’viv region, and as an emeritus returned to the UGCC. For more than 10 years, until his death in 1970, he worked as an underground priest, living in his parish (Gudziak and Turii 2022, p. 166). Father Hilarion Ortynskyi, who until 1957 served in the parish in the village of Voiutychi in the Sambir district, retired and transferred to the underground UGCC. He began working actively in underground communities, and for that reason he was deprived of receiving a pension from the ROC. He also experienced repression and persecution; in particular, he was robbed and beaten several times (Prach 2015, vol. 1, p. 592). It should be said that such “returns” were not hugely common, but it was possible to speak of a certain unique phenomenon in the adaptation of Greek Catholic priests who formally accepted the jurisdiction of the ROC but remained faithful to Catholicism.

6. Perception of the Council

The Second Vatican Council was generally positively perceived in the underground UGCC environment, as evidenced by party functionaries. For example, the Plenipotentiary of the Council for the Affairs of the ROC in the Ivano-Frankivsk region claimed that Greek Catholics had great hopes for the Council and rumors about the imminent revival of the UGCC were actively spreading among them (CSAHAAU, Central State Archive of the Higher Authorities and Administration of Ukraine (ЦДАВО, Центральний державний архів вищих органів влади та управління України), fond 4648, description 3, case 291, pp. 32–33). Such information was also contained in the documents of KGB officers, who believed that the Vatican supported the desire to revive the UGCC in Ukraine and actively helped the representatives of the Greek Catholic diaspora in establishing underground structures in the Soviet Union (SSASSU, Sectoral State Archive of the Security Service of Ukraine (ГДA CБУ, Гaлузевий держaвний aрхiв Cлужби Безпеки Укрaїни), fond 16, description 1, case 965, p. 95). However, such excessive hopes for the Council had a somewhat negative effect of disappointment. In his interview, the underground hieromonk Damian Bohun OSBM recalled that “people thought that if bishops came from all over the world, they would say that the Soviet Union should not exist, because it was not a prison of nations, but a torture chamber of nations. But nothing of the kind was said there. And people were disappointed with that Council, because they, of course, did not understand what the Council was supposed to talk about and what laws were to be established” (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with fr. Damian Bohun OSBM, 06.06.1993, L’viv. P-1-1-150, p. 48). It should be said that although there was some disappointment, in general a rather sober perception of the situation prevailed. Thus, the underground bishop of Ivano-Frankivsk, Sofron Dmyterko OSBM, recalled that the Greek Catholics hoped for at least some relief: “People listened with great joy and hope that the Council would achieve something, especially the contacts with the Orthodox bishops from Russia, who were with the delegation there, that they would agree on something, that it would be easier for us after that Vatican Council” (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Bishop Sofron Dmyterko, 06.11.1997, L’viv. P-1-1-419, pp. 15–16). Apparently, he also expressed his disappointment with the Сouncil, but he argued that the majority still understood that the Holy See was looking for ways to alleviate the fate of the Greek Catholics, even in cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church. The bishop recalled that against the backdrop of the Vatican’s negotiations with representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Greek Catholics often heard the “reunited” ones saying, “it’s good that we signed…, we have something, and you have nothing. The Vatican doesn’t care about you. The Vatican has sold you out”. (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Bishop Sofron Dmyterko, 06.11.1997, L’viv. P-1-1-419, p. 16).

On the other hand, there were certain changes in the attitude towards local communities of the ROC, which even the Orthodox priests spoke about. They reported to the regional plenipotentiaries that some Greek Catholics had begun to attend churches, although they had not done that before. They linked this fact to the decisions of the Vatican Council. Rumors spread among Greek Catholics that, since then, it was possible to go to Orthodox churches, but only to those in which former Greek Catholic priests served, bypassing the clergy from other regions of Ukraine (CSAHAAU, Central State Archive of the Higher Authorities and Administration of Ukraine (ЦДАВО, Центральний державний архів вищих органів влади та управління України), fond 4648, description 3, case 291, p. 32). Although it should be stated that the Greek Catholic priests did not recommend attending Orthodox churches, they clearly recognized that the Holy Mysteries in the ROC would be valid and administering them anew would be a violation of the Council’s decisions (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Fr. Josyf Shtelikha, 26.12.1993, Uzhhorod. P-1-1-205, p. 17).

The underground environment developed a negative perception of the Orthodox clergy. Bishop Sofron emphasized in his interview that people perceived the clergy of the ROC as loyal employees of the Soviet government, who in many cases were characterized by negative moral traits (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Bishop Sofron Dmyterko, 06.11.1997, L’viv. P-1-1-419, pp. 18–19). Hieromonk Damian Bohun OSBM spoke sharply even about those former Greek Catholic priests who, for various reasons, “reunited” with the ROC: “They are traitors to God and that’s it. If they renounced what they had sworn to, when they were ordained, they made a confession of faith, the Catholic faith, not the Orthodox one, then they can only be called bread-eaters, because they just wanted to have bread, and they will do whatever they are told to do”. (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with fr. Damian Bohun OSBM, 06.11.2004, L’viv. T-1-1-31, p. 1). In fact, during the underground era, there was a discussion about the conditions for accepting again the “reunited” clergy, and since the mid-1950s, a secret revocation of the “signing Othodoxy” was introduced, although the part of the Greek Catholic underground which Fr. Bohun belonged to did not support this (Bociurkiw 1993, pp. 143–44).

The convergence with the Orthodox at the Second Vatican Council and the ecumenical dialog did not significantly impact the underground Greek Catholics. For example, Fr. Ivan Kolodii, an underground seminarian ordained in 1983, recalled that he was brought up in a spirit of rejection of Orthodox priests and Orthodoxy in general, perceiving them as ‘schismatics’. However, when the UGCC emerged from the underground, everything changed in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council in its attitude towards the Orthodox: “I am on fairly good terms and convinced in the teaching of the Church according to the Second Vatican Council, and I do not regard them less as I did before, but I understand that they are not in unity with the Apostolic See. I am very well aware of this, but I consider them as brothers and defend them as priests and protect them” (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with fr. Ivan Kolodiy, 14.12.1993, Ternopil region. P-1-1-256, p. 34). Hieromonk Yaroslav Spodar CSsR testified similarly, acknowledging that the ROC was completely under the control of the KGB, but as was noted at the Council, ‘the Holy Spirit liked to save people through the Orthodox Church’ and the signatories should also be treated with understanding: ‘It was a difficult time for them… And we should understand their situation” (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with fr. Yaroslav Spodar CSsR, 15.09.2004, L’viv. P-1-1-1640, p. 20).

Discussion of the document Orientalium Ecclesiarum attracted great attention from the Greek Catholic bishops. Major Archbishop Josyf Slipyj stressed in his speech at the sessions of the Commission for the Eastern Churches that without the Eastern Churches with their rich theological and liturgical heritage, the Catholic Church would have lost much and become poorer (Ivaniv 2021, p. 181). In the decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum, the council fathers stressed the importance of preserving “their liturgical rites and their legal order”, and if under certain circumstances they deviated from them, they should “try to return to their ancestral traditions” (Orientalium Ecclesiarum, p. 6).

Obviously, the most important decisions of the Second Vatican Council among underground Greek Catholics were those associated with such issues as changes in the rite, namely the elimination of Latin borrowings or the use of the word “Orthodox”, the easing of fasting, the use of the Ukrainian language in worship, and the status of the patriarchate for the UGCC (Galadza 2001, pp. 378–80). Undoubtedly, the ritual issue was the most dramatic, with numerous discussions and conflicts. Disputes between Easterners (vostochnyky) and Westerners (zapadnyky) were not new to the UGCC in the 20th century, and, unfortunately, the underground did not become a time for understanding. For many Greek Catholics in the underground, it was the Latinized rite of the UGCC that became an element of resistance to the Soviet system and its satellite, the Russian Orthodox Church. It is symptomatic that it was the Moscow Patriarchate, through the local episcopate, with the help of authorized representatives, that tried to “clean” the rite and traditions in the former Greek Catholic parishes. First of all, they were concerned about the rejection of Latin customs, such as supplication, the cult of the Sacred Heart of Christ and the Body of God, or the prohibition of kneelingly receiving Communion. Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church and the authorities paid great attention to the commemoration of the Orthodox hierarchy by former Greek Catholics during services and the use of the word “Orthodox” (Oksiiuk 1950, pp. 38–39). In light of such processes, it is obvious that the majority of Greek Catholics did not perceive changes in the liturgical and ritual life of the UGCC. Bishop Sofron Dmyterko categorically expressed his disagreement. According to Fr. Kostiuk, Greek Catholics, unable to attend the underground liturgy, attended Roman Catholic churches, and there they were further steeped in Latin traditions, met with the use of the word “Orthodox”, since people immediately associated it with the “Russian Orthodoxy” that was forcibly imposed by the Soviet authorities (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Bishop Sofron Dmyterko, 06.11.1997, L’viv. P-1-1-419, p. 19). Hieromonk Damian Bohun categorically stated that these differences in rites became decisive for the time of the underground, since people, seeing the difference, remained faithful to the Catholic Church and thereby saved Catholicism in the region (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with fr. Damian Bohun OSBM, 06.06.1993, L’viv. P-1-1-150, p. 50).

The consistent defenders of those ritual changes were the L’viv bishops—Vasyl Velychkovskyi and Volodymyr Sterniuk. The priests in support were mainly from the L’viv archdiocese, and the Redemptorist or Studite hieromonks carried out the decisions regarding the Eastern traditions in the UGCC. Thus, the underground priest Metodii Kostiuk, who was forming under the influence of the famous Redemptorist Fr. Mykhailo Vynnytskyi, recalled that he always mentioned “Orthodox” and did not pay any attention to reproaches from the faithful (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Fr. Metodii Kostiuk, 14.03.2002, Pidkamin, L’viv region. P-1-1-645, p. 16). According to Fr. Kostiuk, Greek Catholics, unable to attend the underground liturgy, attended Roman Catholic churches, and there they were further steeped in Latin traditions (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Fr. Metodii Kostiuk, 14.03.2002, Pidkamin L’viv region. P-1-1-645, p. 15). This approach was observed in matters of the Latinized services: Greek Catholics perceived them as theirs and, therefore, did not want to refuse them. In an interview, the Basilian priest Sofron Popadiuk said that he did not fully understand those priests who oppose “prayer services, rosaries, Stations of the Cross” (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Fr. Sofron Popadyuk, 05.09.2003, Ivasivka, Donetsk region. P-1-1-1497, p. 6). These Latinized traditions were indeed deeply rooted in the rite of the UGCC, and even those who worked on “getting eastern” did not completely abandon certain services. For example, Fr. Liubomyr Surmakevych, who was close to Bishop Sterniuk, recalled that the archbishop himself, consistently defending the “eastern face of the UGCC”, always liked to pray the rosary for the unity of the Churches in the evening before going to bed (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Fr. Lubomyr Surmakevych, L’viv. P-1-1-635, p. 4). Many priests tried to maintain a certain balance, based on the realities in which the Church found itself. Thus, the underground priest Fr. Petro Geryliuk-Kupchynskyi, who served a long term in the camps, tried to reconcile the two camps, but according to him it failed (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Church History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Fr. Petro Geryliuk-Kupchinsky, 16.11.1993, Stebnyk, L’viv region. P-1-1-31, p. 17). Fr. Yaroslav Spodar CSsR agreed it was necessary to adhere to the Eastern traditions, but at the same time he emphasized that, on the other hand, people widely perceived “supplications, exposition of the Holy Mysteries … So, people loved it very much” (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Fr. Yaroslav Spodar CSsR, 15.09.2004, L’viv. P-1-1-1640, p. 17).

No doubt, the most serious disputes were held around ritual issues or using the word “Orthodox”. All the other changes were accepted without any particular complaints. Thus, hieromonk Metodii Kostiuk, commenting on the easing of the discipline of fasting, emphasized that fasting should be performed according to the old rules, but for those who could not stand it, the Сouncil gave them relief (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Fr. Metodii Kostiuk, 21.02.1993, L’viv. P-1-1-358, p. 58). The priests understood the needs of the time, that people in such circumstances of life could not always adhere to the old rules, and therefore the Church could reduce the requirements for the faithful (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Fr. Volodymyr Bagniuk CSsR, 14.02.1995, Kolomyia. P-1-1-491, p. 26). The matter of applying the native Ukrainian language in divine services received many favorable reviews. One of the laywomen of the Catacomb Church, who attended underground divine services at the Redemptorists’, recalled with great enthusiasm the moment when they began to use the Ukrainian language. According to her recollections, it was not easy, since all the books for divine services were in Church Slavonic and people were taught in the old way: “I actually knew the prayers in Church Slavonic… I just started learning Ukrainian again. Even when my grandmother taught me, she taught me exclusively in Church Slavonic… I think that there was a lot of good, because a lot of people simply did not understand some words and spoke that way, because they spoke, and distorted them, and so on…” (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Maria Kobyletska, 23.08.2000, L’viv. P-1-1-1238, p. 6). There were certain reproaches here too, as one of the underground priests testified, that people were partly used to and knew the texts in the so-called sacred language (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Fr. Volodymyr Bagniuk CSsR, 14.02.1995, Kolomyia. P-1-1-491, p. 26). The underground Greek Catholics were quite calm about the issue of patriarchal status for the UGCC, which was actively discussed in the diaspora. Here, to some extent, a division into Easterners (vostochnyky) and Westerners (zapadnyky) was also observed: the former followed Slipyj’s opinion, the latter appealed to the lack of relevant decisions by the Vatican, and some expressed skepticism, since in their opinion the question of the UGCC’s existence in Ukraine was unclear (Galadza 2001, pp. 389–90).

Additionally, many underground pastors were not concerned with the implementation of the Second Vatican Council’s decisions, since they believed that the UGCC was facing a completely different challenge—to survive in the face of prohibitions and repressions. Bishop Pavlo Vasylyk, one of the most active figures among underground clergy, in an interview stated that “the Council’s decisions were not felt by the Greek Catholics here, because we were all united to fight against Bolshevik atheism, that enslavement. And our task was to fight for the rights of our Church. And that did not move us, it did not hinder us, we did not even enter the discussions” (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Bishop Pavlo Vasylyk, 18.02.1994, Kolomyia. P-1-1-455, p. 26).

Another aspect of the Сouncil’s influence on the underground UGCC was the inaccessibility of information. Thus, Fr. Ivan Repela, who studied in an underground seminary, expressed the opinion that Greek Catholics did not have the opportunity to develop along with the entire Catholic Church: “that new spirit, that great impetus that the Second Vatican Council gave the whole world, … it passed by us. Because we did not know those materials, we did not know the science of the entire Universal Church, of which we are also a part. …. actually, in the scientific sense, where we could not develop, work, it is negative for us. These 40 years we remained at the level of the 1940s or 1950s post-war years in the development of church science, in the development of the Church, in the development… It is, definitely, a negative influence for us”. (AICH, Archive of the Institute of Сhurch History (Архів Інституту історії Церкви), interview with Fr. Ivan Repela, 14.02.1993, Ivano-Frankivsk. P-1-1-275, p. 37).

7. Negative Response to the Council

It should be said that despite all the positive feedback and expectations, negative opinions about the Second Vatican Council and the papacy were also spreading among Greek Catholics in Ukraine. Thus, the Plenipotentiary of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Ivano-Frankivsk region claimed that among some underground Greek Catholics there was a certain distrust of Pope John XXIII and his successor Paul VI, since they did not publicly defend the persecuted Church and established relations with the Russian Orthodox Church (CSAHAAU, Central State Archive of the Higher Authorities and Administration of Ukraine (ЦДАВО, Центральний державний архів вищих органів влади та управління України), fond 4648, description 3, case 291, pp. 32–33).

However, if we are to talk about the biggest opponents of the course of renewal within the Catholic Church during the underground period of the UGCC, then we should first of all mention the “Pokutnyky” or “penitents”. It was during the preparation and holding of the Second Vatican Council that the so-called “penitent” movement began forming in the Greek Catholic underground, which in the 1960s turned into a full-fledged sect. The ideologist and organizer of this movement was the Greek Catholic priest Ignatii Soltys, who originated from the village of Seredne, in the Ivano-Frankivsk region, and received ordination from the hands of the Stanislaviv auxiliary bishop Ivan Liatyshevskyi in 1948, when he was in exile in Kazakhstan. In fact, during the 1950s, Fr. Soltys conducted active pastoral activities in the L’viv and Ivano-Frankivsk regions. He was noted for his uncompromising attitude towards the Russian Orthodox Church and Orthodox priests and insisted on the repentance of those who had “reunited”. Under his influence, Fr. Sophronii Ivantyshyn repented and returned to the UGCC, serving in the native village of Fr. Soltys (Skakun 2015, p. 472).

The founder of the “penitents” was an influential underground priest, collaborating with many priests and nuns. However, he later increasingly began to emphasize his uniqueness: at first, according to his statement, he was allegedly appointed by the Vatican as an underground bishop, but Bishop Ivan Liatyshevskyi categorically refused to perform his ordination (Skakun 2015, pp. 479–80). The next step in separating Fr. Soltys from the UGCC was the “visions” of his sister Anna Kuzminska, which initially concerned a spring in a mountain in the vicinity of the village of Serednie. According to her prophecy, the Mother of God indicated the uniqueness of this place, which should become an important element of the salvation of all mankind. She claimed that the Virgin Mary appeared on Serednie Mountain and called the people to go on a pilgrimage there for penance and the consumption of holy water: “Whoever comes, repents of their sins and receives that water with faith, I will heal their soul and body and he will not perish when destruction comes” (Skakun 2015, p. 482). In the following years, Soltys’s sister continued to claim new apparitions of the Virgin Mary and prophesized the rapid decline of the Holy See. Father Ignatii also became a radical critic of the Soviet government, calling it “the government of the Antichrist”, demanding that his entourage break ties with public, social, and political life as much as possible, such as leaving the Komsomol, refusing Soviet documents, not working in state places, not going to school, etc. (Skakun 2015, p. 510). The actual break with the underground UGCC occurred in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when, after the death of Pope Pius XII (October 1958), a new pope was elected—John XXIII. The visionary Kuzminska began to say that the current pope was an illegitimate one, the real Roman pope was Ignatius Soltys, and that the center of the Catholic Church was now in the village of Serednie. Later, her prophecies reached the point of proclaiming Soltys as “Christ in the second coming”, and herself as “the Blessed Virgin Mary”.

A split finally occurred between the Greek Catholics and the “Pokytnyky” during the years of the Second Vatican Council, which expressed in its documents the goal of establishing good relations with other Churches. At the same time, the Holy See took diplomatic steps towards socialist countries, particularly the Soviet Union. Both these measures were unacceptable to Soltys and his followers. It should be noted that the majority of the Greek Catholic clergy and monastics rejected the “visions” of Fr. Ignatius’s sister. The only ones who supported him and became penitents were Fr. Anton Potochniak, a priest of the L’viv Archdiocese, and Fr. Stefan Gregorovych from the Transcarpathian region (Skakun 2015, pp. 492, 517). In fact, this penitential movement from the mid-1960s was perceived as something different from the Greek Catholic underground. Even in the statistical reports of the Soviet authorities, officials distinguished between Greek Catholics (Uniates) and “Pokutnyky”.

8. Conclusions

Greek Catholics, who were striving to keep their faith in underground conditions, did not have the opportunity to receive reliable information on the preparation and course of the Second Vatican Council. In fact, the second half of the 1950s to the beginning of the 1960s became a period where church structure was formed in the catacombs. It is symbolic that, at the time of the Council, in Ukraine there was a process of returning those priests who, under the coercion of the authorities, “reunited” with the ROC to the bosom of the UGCC. It was not massive, but it caused concern among Soviet officials. For many Greek Catholics, the news of convening the Ecumenical Council became a hope for the possible revival of the Church or at least the facilitation of its existence in the USSR. At that time, the question of the release of Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj from the Soviet camps was raised, and the active participation of Pope John XXIII made it possible to implement this plan. The release of the Head of the UGCC, his participation in the Second Vatican Council sessions, and the constant reminder of the fate of Greek Catholics in Ukraine became important elements of the struggle for the revival of the UGCC. Josyf Slipyj, who was proclaimed Major Archbishop and later received the title of Cardinal, demanded that the Vatican recognize the UGCC as the patriarchal Church, emphasizing its loyalty to the Apostolic See. At that time, the Greek Catholics in Ukraine accepted the Council’s decisions everywhere through the prism of ritual discussions that were inherent in the UGCC in previous decades. The demands to depart from Latin customs rooted in the Eastern rite of the UGCC were very often encountered with misunderstanding and rejection. It can be said that for the underground UGCC, the Latinized forms of the rite became a certain element of resistance against the Soviet authorities and the Russian Orthodox Church. Obviously, not all the changes in traditions were accepted negatively. In particular, the reform of performing divine services in the native Ukrainian language received a lot of positive feedback. In general, it can be stated that the majority of Greek Catholics perceived the Second Vatican Council as a fact that had taken place but had not yet been implemented in the life of the UGCC. Nevertheless, it was the change in the Vatican’s policy towards socialist countries and its response to the challenges of the world of that time that enabled the Apostolic See to more effectively assist the UGCC in its struggle for revival and legalization.