Oh, for "Break Dancing Jesus" (or Jon, who would be welcome back) with a post called this! But he hasn't yet met his challenge.
Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov are the Russian embodiments of the two competing trends within the countries and peoples of the former Eastern Bloc, one looking to the Modern or Postmodern (pseudo-)West, the other recognising a wasteland without an Eliot when it sees one and instead seeking to witness to the Biblical-Classical synthesis that is the true Western civilisation, and of which the peoples in question are the historic gatekeepers.
Today's news about Poland and the NATO missile shield manifests that, most unfortunately, the Sakharov Tendency is winning there, especially following the much crowed over defeat of the pro-worker, anti-war, economically social democratic League of Polish Families.
As to what will happen in Ukraine, a common identity based on being children of the Kievan Rus is more than possible and desirable, since the present Patriarchate of Moscow, with which Ukrainian Orthodox have often had difficult relations, is in fact a state-sponsored schism from the ancient Patriarchate of Kiev, which re-acceded to Petrine Unity by desire in 1594, by Papal recognition in 1595, and by ratification at the Synod of Brest-Litovsk in 1596, all in the tradition of Prince Izjaslav of Kiev's placing of his lands under the protection of Pope Gregory VII in 1075, of Danylo of Halič's reception of his Crown from Pope Innocent IV as late as 1253, and of the events of 1458, when the schismatic Jonah was proclaimed "Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia" while the Catholic Gregory remained Patriarch of Kiev.
It was not until 1807, following the Tsar's forcible suppression of the See of Kiev, that the Holy See erected the Archbishopric of Leopolis (Lviv). Among its occupants, Andrzej Szeptycki, in office from 1900 to 1944, was so tireless, alike for the Union of Brest-Litovsk, for theological study, for the monastic life, and for Ukrainian history and archaeology, that he was known as "the Father of the Ukrainian People" by Catholics and Orthodox alike. Let his successors, in turn, be so known. Let them act as such.
And, given that the Second Vatican Council envisaged each of the Eastern Catholic Churches as properly headed by a Patriarch, let them do so, even if they live at Lviv, as Patriarchs of Kiev.
Restored as such, of course, by the Pope. Which brings us to Soloviev, lifelong advocate of both a globally operative Tsar and a globally operative Pope, in the tradition of the Christian Emperor at (as he of course saw it, although this is hard to square with his Papalism) first Rome, then Constantinople, and then Moscow.
Opinions differ as to whether Soloviev became a Catholic on his deathbed. But he clearly accepted that the Holy Emperor did not have to be so, although one would of course pray and do everything one could to make him so.
So, where is the Holy Emperor (or Holy Empress) today? Reigning in and over the 16 Commonwealth Realms (each of which, including the United Kingdom, remains so entirely by choice), in and over the 10 British Overseas Territories with permanent populations (which remain British entirely by choice), in and over the three Crown Dependencies (which remain so entirely by choice), in and over the three inhabited territories (voluntarily) dependent on Australia, in and over the one inhabited territory (voluntarily) dependent on New Zealand, in and over each of the two states in free association with New Zealand, as Paramount Chief of Great Council of Chiefs of Fiji (which elects the President), and as the focus of unity of the United Kingdom.
No one else comes close.
Whereas there have been rival Emperors in the past, although of course there was none by Soloviev's day, just as there is none today. Look out for the consequent complexities of being Latin or being Slavic, being culturally Latin while Orthodox or being culturally Latin while Byzantine Rite Catholic, being Orthodox such as looked to Constantinople or Orthodox such as looked to Moscow, and so forth, when Moldova decides that it is going home to Romania, but Transistria decides that it is not, because Romania is not its home.
I'm touched you would want me back David.
ReplyDeletexxxxxx
PS Who's this Solzheee whatever bloke then?
I can hardly believe that I am writing this, but the Wikipedia entry is actually quite a good place to start.
ReplyDeleteNow, what have you say about the points in the post?
And where, one wonders, is BDJ?
Oh come on, David - you don't believe that's really Jon, do you? He'd never write "Who's this Solzheee whatever bloke then?" - he may not know much about Solzhenitsyn, but he would certainly affect to know, and write pseudo-scholarly paragraphs about his significance, confident in the misplaced assumption that his audience takes him seriously. I know his type: utter confidence in his intellectual superiority, puffed up with self-importance, and utterly lacking a sense of the ridiculous or even the ability to comprehend that his audience is laughing at him, not with him. You've been talking to Jon and his kind on this blog for long enough to know about people like that, surely? They post here all the time.
ReplyDeleteNot sure what you are on about.
ReplyDeleteTake it however you disagree with Russian pressure back in 1995 to bury the Patriach Volodomyr of Kiev under a public pavement.
I certainly do.
ReplyDeleteThe Byzantine Rite Catholic Patriarch of Kiev (Mother Kiev, of course), ordinarly resident at Lviv, is naturally and historically, and ought to be in fact, the Father of Ukrainian People, universally acknowledged as such.
In the exercise of that role lies the solution to the conflict or crisis of Ukrainian identity as Eastward-looking or Westward-looking, since it is in so many levels clearly both, as a living critique both of Russian chauvinism and of pseudo-Western decay.
"paragraphs"
ReplyDeleteI wish!
BDJ, the master non-stylist, has been back today. But he hasn't met his challenge, so I won't let him on.
Jon is a supporter of the ill-read and inarticulate David Cameron, while BDJ is a supporter of the ill-read and inarticulate Tony Blair. So what do you expect?
Jon used to be better, you know. And could be again.
But BDJ, of whose identity I have no doubt, has never been any better, and never could be.
I have been in the Ukrainian Catholic hq, St George's Cathedral.
ReplyDeleteHave to say it is quite small for the centre of the faith and it is a bit out of the city centre. To be honest the Church of the Transfiguration (the first church to be returned to Ukrainian Catholic church after the collapse of communism) is much bigger.
They certainly take the faith there seriously though. I witnessed the swearing in of new police graduates outside the regional office of the Interior ministry (they stopped the traffic for the morning for the ceremony). The swearing in was presided over by a UC priest and some fellow travellers backed up by two graduates holding a large painted icon.
Jolly good.
ReplyDeleteA Byzantine Rite (Slavic Variants) church in full communion with Rome, the historic continuation of the Kiev Patriarchate but these days based at Lviv. Regardless of personal belief or affiliation, as a focus of Ukrainian identity for events such as this, it is perfect.
I don't think that Not Jon quite gets the David Lindsay tone of voice. Probably never met him. So reading this blog is a bit like only knowing the works of Jane Austen or PG Wodehouse from the television, without ever having read the books. It's all in the tone of voice.
ReplyDelete