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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to comment on the submitted contribution "The activities of the UGCC under the Soviet totalitatrian regime and the Second Vatican Council" as follows.
I consider the article overall to be solidly written and in line with academic criteria. The use of primary sources is positive.
One shortcoming is that two relevant works from recent years have not been taken into account, which raises the question of whether the author has considered the literature after 2021:
A. DeVille/D. Galadza (eds.), The 'Lviv Sobor' of 1946 and Its Aftermath. Towards Truth and Reconciliation (Eastern Christian Studies 34), Leiden 2023.
M. Ivaniv, The Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Bishops at the Second Vatican Council: The Participation in the Council and Contribution to the Discussions of Conciliar Documents, in: V. Latinovic/A. Wooden (eds.), Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy? Vol 1, Cham 2021, 161-184.
The synodal activity of the bishops of the UGCC in the period under investigation is not given enough attention, but it should be at least mentioned as it is important for the understanding of the role of the church leadership. Publications on this topic: M. Marksteiner-Mishchenko, Синодальна діяльність єпископів УГКЦ в 1963-1969 рр.: канонічно-історичний аналіз, in: Kovcheh VIII, Lviv 2019, 261-277; Idem, Le riunioni dei Vescovi della Chiesa Greco - Cattolica Ucraina (1963-1989). Ricerca storico - giuridica, Dissertation at PIO, Roma 2017; Th. Németh, Eine Kirche nach der Wende. Die Ukrainische Griechisch-Katholische Kirche im Spiegel ihrer synodalen Tätigkeit (Kirche und Recht 24) Freistadt 2005, 29-53[synodal activity 1951-1989].
Also for the Underground period: Бублик, Т., Гуркіна, С., Заблоцька, Н., Коломиєць, І., Михалейко, А. (eds.), Підпільна Церква в умовах тоталітарної держави, Lviv 2012.
For an English-speaking audience, there is also this UCU-publication, although for a wider audience: Persecution for the Truth. Ukrainian Greek Catholics in the conditions of totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century, Lviv 2017.
Individual observations:
p. 2: 65, 66: The Eparchy of Mukachevo was and is not part of the UGCC but a separate church sui iuris. It was not liquidated by the Pseudosobor in 1946, but after the murder of Bishop Theodor Romzha in 1947
p. 2: 78: The book by Serhiichuk is written in Ukrainian, if I'm not mistaken (not always entirely reliable, by the way) but this is an English text: translated by the author?
p. 5: 217, 223: Metropolitan Yosyf Slipyj became Major Archbishop in 1963, after the UGCC was recognized by the Roman See as a Maor Archiepiscopal Church. However, he is usually referred to as Patriarch in the UGCC because he claimed this title without this being granted to him by Rome. Without this information, it is difficult for readers to understand why he is called a patriarch. Regarding the Conclusions on p. 14: 673: he received the title of Cardinal, but Major Archbishop is not a title but a rank, because the church he presided over was recognized as a major archiepiscopal one.
p. 6: 254: Vasyl Velychkovskyi was secretly ordained bishop by Metr. Slipyi in Moscow in 1963 and subsequently founded the underground hierarchy. It seems to me that this connection is not clear to the reader.p. 11:499ff : The duty to commemorate the Catholic and not the Orthodox hierarchy is not a question of rite or Latinization, but also arises from the Communio Ecclesiarum.523: I don't understand why going to cathedrals (plural!) led to Latin influences, that only applies to Roman Catholic cathedrals, right? 532: The fact that the Latinizing practices are deeply rooted in the rite of the UGCC is true, on the one hand. On the other hand it depends on how one understands tradition. There have indeed been Latinizing tendencies since the union with Rome, but there have also been efforts to overcome them for some time. In its Decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum Nr. 6, Vatican II urged the Eastern churches to return to the ancestral traditions, and what this means is still being discussed today in the UGCC. I am cautious in my overall judgment of this article because I am less familiar with all the details of the underground period of the UGKK than some researchers working at the UCU, Institute of Church History. Overall, I support the inclusion of the article on the condition that the works mentioned at the beginning are consulted.

Author Response

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with these comments. All corrections are highlighted with a yellow marker.

I would like to comment on the submitted contribution "The activities of the UGCC under the Soviet totalitatrian regime and the Second Vatican Council" as follows.
I consider the article overall to be solidly written and in line with academic criteria. The use of primary sources is positive.
One shortcoming is that two relevant works from recent years have not been taken into account, which raises the question of whether the author has considered the literature after 2021:
A. DeVille/D. Galadza (eds.), The 'Lviv Sobor' of 1946 and Its Aftermath. Towards Truth and Reconciliation (Eastern Christian Studies 34), Leiden 2023.
M. Ivaniv, The Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Bishops at the Second Vatican Council: The Participation in the Council and Contribution to the Discussions of Conciliar Documents, in: V. Latinovic/A. Wooden (eds.), Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy? Vol 1, Cham 2021, 161-184.
The synodal activity of the bishops of the UGCC in the period under investigation is not given enough attention, but it should be at least mentioned as it is important for the understanding of the role of the church leadership. Publications on this topic: M. Marksteiner-Mishchenko, Синодальна діяльність єпископів УГКЦ в 1963-1969 рр.: канонічно-історичний аналіз, in: Kovcheh VIII, Lviv 2019, 261-277; Idem, Le riunioni dei Vescovi della Chiesa Greco - Cattolica Ucraina (1963-1989). Ricerca storico - giuridica, Dissertation at PIO, Roma 2017; Th. Németh, Eine Kirche nach der Wende. Die Ukrainische Griechisch-Katholische Kirche im Spiegel ihrer synodalen Tätigkeit (Kirche und Recht 24) Freistadt 2005, 29-53[synodal activity 1951-1989].
Also for the Underground period: Бублик, Т., Гуркіна, С., Заблоцька, Н., Коломиєць, І., Михалейко, А. (eds.), Підпільна Церква в умовах тоталітарної держави, Lviv 2012.
For an English-speaking audience, there is also this UCU-publication, although for a wider audience: Persecution for the Truth. Ukrainian Greek Catholics in the conditions of totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century, Lviv 2017.

I have used some of the proposed articles (M. Ivaniv, N. Shlikhta, M. Marksteiner-Mishchenko)

1. 2: 65, 66: The Eparchy of Mukachevo was and is not part of the UGCC but a separate church sui iuris. It was not liquidated by the Pseudosobor in 1946, but after the murder of Bishop Theodor Romzha in 1947

Agree with the comment. Made the following correction “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 (November 1, 1947). Then, on August 28, 1949, they announced the liquidation of the ecclesiastical Unia of Uzhhorod without holding a Council (p. 2)”

1. 2: 78: The book by Serhiichuk is written in Ukrainian, if I'm not mistaken (not always entirely reliable, by the way) but this is an English text: translated by the author?

This is my translation. I submitted this quote (№ 1) in Ukrainian

1. 5: 217, 223: Metropolitan Yosyf Slipyj became Major Archbishop in 1963, after the UGCC was recognized by the Roman See as a Maor Archiepiscopal Church. However, he is usually referred to as Patriarch in the UGCC because he claimed this title without this being granted to him by Rome. Without this information, it is difficult for readers to understand why he is called a patriarch. Regarding the Conclusions on p. 14: 673: he received the title of Cardinal, but Major Archbishop is not a title but a rank, because the church he presided over was recognized as a major archiepiscopal one.

Agree with the comment. Made the following correction «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 a part of the Greek Catholic bishops and clergy (p. 6)”. “…. who was proclaimed Major Archbishop and later received the title of Cardinal (p. 15)»

1. 6: 254: Vasyl Velychkovskyi was secretly ordained bishop by Metr. Slipyi in Moscow in 1963 and subsequently founded the underground hierarchy. It seems to me that this connection is not clear to the reader.

Made the following correction “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 (p. 7)”.

1. 11:499ff : The duty to commemorate the Catholic and not the Orthodox hierarchy is not a question of rite or Latinization, but also arises from the Communio Ecclesiarum.

Made the following correction “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” (p. 12)”

523: I don't understand why going to cathedrals (plural!) led to Latin influences, that only applies to Roman Catholic cathedrals, right?

This is a translation problem. Made the following correction “According to Fr. Kostiuk, Greek Catholics, unable to attend the underground Liturgy, attended Roman Catholic churches, and there they were further asserted in Latin traditions (p. 12)”

532: The fact that the Latinizing practices are deeply rooted in the rite of the UGCC is true, on the one hand. On the other hand it depends on how one understands tradition. There have indeed been Latinizing tendencies since the union with Rome, but there have also been efforts to overcome them for some time. In its Decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum Nr. 6, Vatican II urged the Eastern churches to return to the ancestral traditions, and what this means is still being discussed today in the UGCC.

I completely agree with such thoughts. But this is probably a topic for a full-fledged study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The article is an interesting contribution to the history of the Greek Catholic Church in the then Soviet Union. It traces the different phases of the existence of the Greek Catholic Church in Soviet conditions, when its activities were forcibly stopped by the Soviet authorities and the Soviet powers sought to merge this Church with the Orthodox Church. An important part of the study is a reflection on the pontificate of John XXIII, when papal diplomacy established contacts with pro-Soviet regimes in Eastern Europe. At this time, the release of Archbishop Josip Slipy from Soviet imprisonment and his departure to exile in Rome was successfully negotiated. The author has, in my opinion, captured very well the little-known activities of the Greek Catholic underground, including the tensions between different currents of opinion. He also provides important insights into how the impulses of the Second Vatican Council were received in the underground activities of the Greek Catholic Church. In doing so, it successfully combines the captured recollections of church members (oral research) with archival sources and literature. I appreciate that the work draws on archival sources of various provenance.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article offers a lot of information on the situation of the UGCC in the 1950s and early 1960s. The use of interviews offers new insights, a.o. about UGCC priests who originally chose or were forced to join the ROC returned to the UGCC. I also appreciated the information on the sectarian split withing the UGCC. My only small reservations and request to the author to perhaps also allow for other voices are on p. 5 on Slypij. At times it seems the Metropolitan was the only active Ukrainian bishop at the Council. Even if he largely was a "uniting figure" there were also some tensions regarding his person and especially his choice to accept the cardinalate was not undisputed. Consultation of one of the only diaries by Eastern Catholics, that of Metropolitan Hermaniuk, could bring more nuancing here. I ALSO ADDED THE ARTICLE FILE WITH CORRECTION OF SOME MINOR TYPOS.

Author Response

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with these comments. All corrections are highlighted with a yellow marker

My only small reservations and request to the author to perhaps also allow for other voices are on p. 5 on Slypij. At times it seems the Metropolitan was the only active Ukrainian bishop at the Council. Even if he largely was a "uniting figure" there were also some tensions regarding his person and especially his choice to accept the cardinalate was not undisputed. Consultation of one of the only diaries by Eastern Catholics, that of Metropolitan Hermaniuk, could bring more nuancing here.

I used the diary of Metropolitan Germaniuk. As for the voice of other bishops, I focused more on the underground clergy in the article. Therefore, the relationship between Slipy and the bishops remained outside the scope of my attention.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf