PAUL BABIE

THE UKRANIAN Greek-Catholic Church, as is the case with each of the sui juris churches which together comprise the Eastern Catholic Churches, shares its theological, spiritual and liturgical roots and traditions with the Christian East (those Churches of the Christian East with which most westerners are today familiar are the Orthodox Churches). Yet, while there is a growing sense of and movement towards an ecclesial self-identity amongst its clergy and faithful,1 the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Australia2 does not yet fully practice the traditions which it shares with the Christian East, as is generally the case with the other Eastern Catholic churches in Australia which enjoy eparchial (the Eastern term for diocesan) status. A significant aspect of this emerging ecclesial self-identity is a desire to be authentic in the practice of Eastern Christian liturgical, spiritual and theological traditions. A very topical example of this desire to be authentic is the role of the filioque in the Creed used in the liturgical life of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church.

The filioque is the italicised portion of the following article of the Creed: ‘the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son.’ The Greek version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which was approved at the Council of Constantinople in 381AD, was based upon the doctrinal statements of the Council of Nicaea in 325AD, and which was confirmed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD, did not contain the filioque.3 Rather, the filioque was a later Western Christian addition which continues to be a source of controversy and tension between Eastern and Western Christians.

The Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church considers the filioque to be of uncertain status as a part of the contemporary form of the Creed. Consequently, many of the Ukrainian Catholic hierarchs around the world, particularly those in North America, have already issued joint Eastern Catholic-Orthodox statements that they no longer use the filioque in any liturgical services.4 Given this uncertain status, the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Australia, at its annual Clergy Conference (known as a Soborchyk) held between 31 August and 2 September 2004, affirmed that the contemporary recitation of the filioque by the faithful is a practice that has developed over time either as a result of, at best, historical latin dominance of the Eastern Catholic churches5 or, at worst, a latinisation of authentic Eastern Christian practice.6 This article briefly sets out the three main reasons for the position which has been taken by the Australian Ukrainian Catholic Soborchyk: (i) ecclesiological differences between Eastern and Western Christians concerning the way in which the filioque was added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, (ii) theological issues associated with the orthodoxy of the filioque, and (iii) the Union of Brest-Litovsk, 1596, which was the canonical means by which the Kyivan (Ukrainian) Greek-Catholic Church entered communion with the Roman (Latin) Church.

Ecclesiology: The means by which the Filioque was added to the Creed
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, because of its antiquity, is almost universally recognised among Christian denominations as a true expression of Christian faith. That version of the Creed states simply a belief in ‘the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.’ This Creed acquired liturgical importance among Eastern Christians both as a baptismal creed and, from the fifth century, as the creed used in the Divine Liturgy.7

The first evidence of the filioque is found in extant versions of Canon 2 of the documents of the Third Council of Toledo (589AD). Toledo III was one of a series of Anti-Arian Councils in Spain which sought to affirm the Divinity of Christ by ranking the Second Person of the Trinity as co-equal with the Father; this was accomplished by ascribing the procession of the Holy Spirit to both the Father and the Son. This came to be known as the doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit. As such, these Anti-Arian councils, Toledo III among them, altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by interpolating the filioque into the Creed so that the relevant article would read: ‘who proceeds from the Father and the Son…’8 The status of the filioque at Toledo III is, however, doubtful. It is not at all clear that the canons promulgated at the Council itself, as opposed to later versions of those canons, did in fact contain the filioque. Similarly, there was a particular reason for the interpolation: the refutation of the Arian heresy. Nonetheless, the doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit, from the Father and the Son, came to be widespread in the West, and the modification of the Creed spread. Still, the Roman Church, starting with Pope Leo III (798-816AD) (who even had two silver plates engraved with the Creed without the filioque and placed in St Peter’s), opposed the use of the interpolation until the eleventh century.9

The Eastern Christian theological position on the dogmatic authority of the filioque is simple: regardless of the purpose of the change, the filioque is an illegitimate alteration of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by interpolation and, as such, it is an alteration that lacks authoritative dogmatic status. For Eastern Christian theologians, to have authoritative dogmatic status, such an addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed—which was approved by Ecumenical Council in 381AD and affirmed at a second such Council in 451AD—could only be made by Ecumenical Council, which Toledo III was not. And even if Toledo III were such a council, the contemporaneous versions of the canons promulgated there did not contain such an approval of the filioque.10

Theology: The Eastern Christian Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the Procession of the Holy Spirit
In addition to ecclesiological concerns with interpolation, Eastern Christian theologians have long rejected the Western Christian doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit.11 The East therefore considers the filioque to be theologically inaccurate, and, indeed, to be a human attempt to alter the very essence of God (the Divinity of God), by misconstruing the internal relationship of the three Hypostases (Persons) of the Holy Trinity and of the inner life of God.12 The Eastern Christian doctrine of the Trinity is considered not to be an invention of theologians (although it was put into writing by them), nor a teaching which gradually developed within the Church, but a Divinely revealed truth.13 It goes without saying that humans, theologians or otherwise, are in no position to change that Divinely revealed truth, which explains the Divinity of the Trinity, the Godhead, Three in One and One in Three, any more than they can change Holy Scripture.

It is useful to consider the development of the Eastern Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Early patristic writings indicate the theological differences between the Eastern and the Western approach: the school of Antioch (c 460AD) leaned toward the literal interpretation of Holy Scripture and emphasised the distinction of the Divine Persons, thus opposing what would become filioquist thought, while the Alexandrian school (c 444AD) favoured analogical interpretation of Holy Scripture and emphasised the oneness of the Divine essence, thus possibly allowing for (although probably not actually teaching) the filioque.14

While St Augustine of Hippo (d 430AD), the great patristic father of the Western Church, favoured an approach that sits comfortably with the filioque, the Eastern Cappadocian Fathers, St Basil the Great (d 379AD), St Gregory of Nazianzus (d 390AD) and St Gregory of Nyssa (d 395AD), developed their teaching on the Holy Trinity along the lines of the Antiochene school.15 They stressed the real distinction of the Divine Persons and defined the distinguishing characteristic of the Father as Unoriginate Origin or Unbegotten, the Son as Begotten and the Holy Spirit as Proceeding. In this system, filioquist thought is entirely out of place because it obscures what is unique to the Hypostasis of the Father: the Son is generated from, or born of the Unoriginate Origin, the Father, while the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and not from the Begotten. These ‘personal attributes’ distinguish the three Hypostases of the Trinity one from another while at the same time expressing the relationships—mysterious though they may be (although such mysteriousness is not problematic for the apophatic theology of the East)—between them.16 On the basis of this doctrine of the Trinity, as developed from the work of the Cappadocian Fathers, Eastern Christianity ultimately came to argue that the filioque is not only an illegitimate addition (on the shaky foundation of Toledo III) but also a grave theological error.17 It was eventually included among the list of complaints against Rome that led to the Great Schism between East and West in 1054, and remains a source of division and tension between the two Churches to this day.18

Attempts at union since 1054, while problematic for various reasons, have always foundered on the issue of the filioque.19 The Western Church sought to impose acceptance of the filioque at the Council of Lyons in 1274 and at Florence in 1439. The Eastern Christian response to the proclamations at those councils demonstrates the growing importance of the underlying issues of the Eastern doctrine of the Trinity and the ecclesiological issue regarding the authority to alter the Nicene Creed by interpolation. An Eastern Council held in Constantinople in 1351 bolstered the Eastern position on the filioque: it defined as dogmatic the distinction between the Divine essence (which is part of the inner life of God and so unknown to humans other than through the Doctrine of the Trinity) and the Divine energies, a distinction which found its origins in the writings of the Cappadocians and reached its zenith in the work of St Gregory Palamas (d 1359).20 On the basis of that distinction, as well as on the conviction that it is the Father’s personal property to be the source of Divine life, and that the Monarchy of the Father alone allows for the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Eastern Christian theologians continued to insist that the filioque was irreconcilable with Eastern Trinitarian faith.21

The filioque continues to be a matter of concern among theologians interested in ecumenical discussion and, in that regard, it is to be noted—and in the present context it is very significant—that the vast majority of contemporary Western theologians propose that the filioque be dropped from the Creed when it is recited in the mass.22 This proposal is founded upon two bases: (i) the process by which the filioque was added was questionable at best, and (ii) it remains a barrier to the profession of the common Christian faith expressed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (which all agree did not contain the filioque).23

The Union of Brest-Litovsk 1596, the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, and the Filioque
It is clear that the contemporary Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, which traces its origins to the Kyivan (Ukrainian) Church, was a part of the Christian East during the time at which the foregoing theological and ecclesiological positions were germinating, growing and ripening to their present stature. Indeed, it remained part of the Christian East following the Great Schism of 1054. Thus, the theological, spiritual and liturgical tradition of the Kyivan Church was thoroughly Eastern in 1596. As such, the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church traces its theological and ecclesiological heritage and roots to the tradition of the Christian East, not the West. While that may not be an uncontroversial statement, virtually all theologians, Eastern (Catholic and Orthodox) and Western, who have written on the topic consider it fact.24 It is far less controversial to say that the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church came into full communion with the Roman Church pursuant to the Articles of Union contained in the Union of Brest-Litovsk,25 concluded between the Metropolitan Province of Kyiv and the Roman Church in 1596.26

Some background to the Union of Brest-Litovsk is useful. In 1569 the Union of Lublin united Poland and Lithuania. The Eastern Christian faithful of the Kyivan Church, the subjects of the new state, found themselves socially disadvantaged and facing the active presence of the Roman (Western) Church. In order to stop the spread of Protestantism among their faithful, raise the standards of their clergy, and, above all, preserve their Eastern Christian tradition in the face of expanding Polish Roman Catholicism,27 in 1595 the bishops of the Kyivan Church formulated thirty-three conditions under which they would be prepared to enter into communion with the Roman Church. These conditions included: (i) the retention of the traditional Creed and rites,28 (ii) the stipulation that the Kyivan Church would not be obliged to observe Roman (Latin) customs,29 (iii) the retention of a married clergy,30 (iv) the freedom to have Kyivan bishops consecrated without mandate from Rome and the assurance that the Kyivan Church’s hierarchs would always be ‘of our religion’,31 (v) the retention of monasteries under Eastern Episcopal control,32 and, (vi) the assurance that Eastern clergy would enjoy parity of esteem and privilege with Roman clergy.33 On the basis of these conditions, the Union of Brest-Litovsk was concluded between the Kyivan and Roman Churches at a synod in 1596.

It is clear that the Eastern Christian understanding of the Creed in 1596 did not contain the filioque; indeed, as we have seen, to insert it was considered by Eastern theologians to be both an ecclesiological and a grave theological error. For those reasons, the Union of Brest-Litovsk made it clear that the Kyivan hierarchs who entered into communion with Rome in 1596 adhered, without question, to the Eastern understanding of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Because the Kyivan bishops who ratified the Union were very concerned to protect the Eastern Christian heritage of their church they insisted that the very first Article of Union read as follows:

1. Firstly, since among the Romans and the Greeks there is a dispute as to the procession of the H(oly) Spirit, which is a considerable obstacle to unification and which probably endures for no other reason than that we do not understand each other, we, therefore, request that we not be constrained to a different confession [of faith], but that we remain with the one that we find expressed in the S(acred) Scriptures, in the Gospels, and also in the writings of the H(oly) Greek Doctors [i.e. Church Fathers], namely that the H(oly) Spirit does not have two origins, nor a double procession, but that He proceedes from one origin, as from a source—from the Father through the Son.34

Conclusion
On 2 September 2004, the Soborchyk of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Australia considered the Eastern ecclesiological position on the filioque, the Eastern Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Eastern (Greek) usage of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Soborchyk concluded that the Union of Brest-Litovsk, 1596, expressly recognised and affirmed the Creed as used in the Christian East in 1596 and expressly excluded, and excludes not only the requirement that the filioque form any part of the Creed as used by the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, but also any requirement that it accept the Western understanding of the double procession of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the practice of reciting the Western form of the Creed, which contains the filioque, is nothing more than a practice which has developed as a consequence of either latin dominance or of the latinisation of Eastern Catholic practices, the Creed among them.35 The Soborchyk therefore affirmed that the interpolation of the filioque into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381AD must be viewed as not obligatory upon Ukrainian Catholics, and as a direct violation of the Union of Brest-Litovsk, 1596.

Paul Babie is Lecturer in Law at the University of Adelaide and a Priest of the Eparchy of Sts Peter and Paul for the Ukrainian Catholics of Australia, New Zealand and Oceania.

NOTES
1 See Paul Babie, ‘‘Embracing the Other’: Ecclesiology, Canon Law and Ukranian Catholics in Australia’, Australian Slavonic and East European Studies Journal 17 (2003): 159-184; Paul Babie, ‘Australia’s Ukrainian Catholics, Canon Law and the Eparchial Statutes’, Australasian Catholic Record 81 (2004): 32-48; and see Andriy Chirovsky, ‘Toward an Ecclesial Self-Identity for the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church’, Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 35 (1995): 83-123; Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia, ‘Response to Fr. Andriy Chirovsky: ‘Towards an Ecclesial Self-Identity for the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church’’, Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 35 (1995): 125-131.
2 The official title of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in Australia is ‘The Eparchy of Sts Peter and Paul of Melbourne for the Ukrainian Catholics of Australia, New Zealand and Oceania’; for the purposes of this article the Eparchy will be referred to as the ‘Ukrainian Catholic Church in Australia’, while the Church sui juris will be referred to as the ‘Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church.’ For background on the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church and on the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Australia, see Paul Babie, ‘Embracing the Other’; Paul Babie, ‘Australia’s Ukranian Catholics’.
3 ‘The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?’ An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, Saint Paul’s College, Washington, D.C., October 2003, http://www.scoba.us/resources/filioque-p01.asp, accessed 24/08/2004. This statement canvasses many of the same concerns surrounding the filioque as regards the ecumenical dialogue between the Latin Catholic and the Orthodox churches in North America. It is also an excellent historical background, both ecclesiological and theological, to the ongoing differences between the two churches.
4 Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox Hierarchs Fraternal Encounter II – Communiqué, 6-7 February 2004, http://www.vcn.bc.ca/ucepnw/news/issue35orthodox.html, accessed 24/08/2004. The communiqué was issued by: (i) the following Ukrainian and Byzantine Catholic Hierarchs: Metropolitan Stefan of Philadelphia, Metropolitan Michael of Winnipeg (who was unable to attend due to ill health), Bishop Robert of Parma, Ohio, Bishop Basil of Stamford, Connecticut, Bishop Severian of New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada, Bishop Emeritus Cornelius of Toronto and Eastern Canada, Bishop Richard Steven of Chicago, and Bishop Motiuk of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; and (ii) the following Ukrainian Orthodox Hierarchs: Metropolitan Constantine of Parma, Ohio, Metropolitan Wasyly of Canada (who was unable to attend due to ill health), and Archbishop Vsevelod of Chicago. See also ‘Metropolitan Stefan Restores Creed!’ (Sunday, June 20, 2004) Progress Ukrainian Catholic News Issue 13/2049, http://www.archeparchy.ca/progress/index.htm, accessed 15/9/2004.
5 Andrew Kania, ‘Breathing Deeply, With One Lung: The Problem of Latin Church dominance within the Catholic Church’, Australasian Catholic Record 81 (2004): 198-211.
6 Peter Galadza, ‘Liturgical Latinization and Kievan Ecumenism: Losing the Koinê of Koinonia’, Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 35 (1995): 173-194, 176, defines a latinisation of Eastern practice as: ‘…the importing or imposition onto [Eastern Catholic] worship of the spirit, practices and priorities of latin liturgy and theology. For such an imposition or importation to constitute inappropriate latinization, it must be inorganic to the [Eastern Catholic] system. By inorganic I mean that the structural, theological or spiritual genius of the Byzantine tradition is violated by these borrowings.’ Pope John Paul II, in Apostolic Letter The Light of the East Orientale Lumen of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II to the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful to Mark the Centenary of Orientalium Dignitas of Pope Leo XIII, 2 May 1995 (Homebush, New South Wales: St Pauls, 1995), has called for a renewal and return to authentic Eastern Christian tradition among the Eastern Catholic Churches; as such, it is at least implicit in this admonition that latinisation of Eastern Catholic tradition must be removed from the liturgy, spirituality and theology of the Eastern Catholic churches.
7 Corinne Winter, ‘Filioque’ in Richard P McBrien, gen ed, The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism (New York, New York: HarperCollinsSanFrancisco, 1995) 529-530.
8 Ibid; Melling, ‘filioque’.
9 John Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church: Its Past and Its Role in the World Today (Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996), 37, n. 1, and see 44-54; John Binns, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 208-210; Melling, ‘filioque’.
10 David J Melling ‘filioque’ in Ken Parry, David J Melling, Dimitri Brady, Sidney H Griffith & John F Healey, eds, The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers, 2001) 198-199.
11 Melling, ‘filioque’.
12 The best exposition of the Eastern Christian theological understanding of the internal relationship of the three Hypostases of the Holy Trinity and of the procession of the Holy Spirit is found in Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God (Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), 71-96; Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976), 44-66, 156-173, 213-214, 240. See also John D Zizioulas, Being as Communion (Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997), 27-65 and 123-142. It should be noted, though, that there are recent attempts to overcome the differences between Eastern and Western Christianity in relation to the filioque: see The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, ‘The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?’, which includes recommendations that both East and West look for constructive ways of expressing what is central to the faith on this issue, recognise the limitations of human ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God, that both refrain from labelling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the procession of the Holy Spirit, that both distinguish more clearly between the Divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, which awaits definitive ecumenical resolution, that both distinguish, as much as possible, between the origin of the Holy Spirit and ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, and that the Catholic Church use the original Greek text alone in making translations of the Creed for catechetical and liturgical use. This article, while stating the formal Eastern Christian ecclesiological and theological positions on this matter, should nonetheless be read in the light of these recommendations.
13 Hilarion Alfeyev, The Mystery of Faith: An Introduction to the Teaching and Spirituality of the Orthodox Church (London, England: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2002), 31.
14 Winter, ‘Filioque’.
15 See Augustine Holmes, A Life Pleasing to God: The Spirituality of the Rules of St Basil (London, England: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2000), 3-56; Oliver Davies, ed, Tim Witherow, trans, Gateway to Paradise: Basil the Great (London, England: New City, 1991), 95-103; St Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and the Two Letters to Cledonius (Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002); Peter Gilbert, trans, On God and Man: The Theological Poetry of St Gregory of Nazianzus (Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001); John McGuckin, Saint Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography (Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001); Herbert Musurillo, trans and ed, From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s Mystical Writings (Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995); Abraham J Malherbe and Everett Ferguson, trans, Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1978).
16 Alfeyev, Mystery of Faith, 35.
17 See Meyendorff, Orthodox Church, 178-179.
18 Winter, ‘Filioque’.
19 Binns, Christian Orthodox Churches, 216-218.
20 On the Divine Energies, see Lossky, Mystical Theology, 67-90; John Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas (Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1998); John Meyendorff, ed, Nicholas Gendle, trans, Gregory Palamas, The Triads (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1983), 71-111.
21 Winter, ‘Filioque’.
22 Indeed, Pope John Paul II, has publicly recited the Creed without the filioque, particularly on the occasion of the 1,700th anniversary of the Council of Constantinople and on ecumenical occasions such as the Feast of Sts Peter and Paul each year: ‘The Creed’ (Sunday, June 20, 2004) Progress Ukrainian Catholic News Issue 13/2049, http://www.archeparchy.ca/progress/index.htm, accessed 15/9/2004.
23 Ibid. The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, ‘The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?’, confirms this position in the United States, by recommending that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381AD, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use. See also ‘The Creed’ (Sunday, June 20, 2004) Progress Ukrainian Catholic News Issue 13/2049, http://www.archeparchy.ca/progress/index.htm, accessed 15/9/2004.
24 Ronald G Roberson, ‘Brest, Union of’ in McBrien, HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism; David J Melling, ‘Ukrainian Catholic Church’ in Parry, Melling, Brady, Griffith & Healey, Dictionary of Eastern Christianity, 503-505; FL Cross and EA Livingstone, eds, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 1997) ‘Brest-Litovsk, Union of’; Borys A Gudziak, Crisis and Reform: The Kyivan Metropolitanate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Genesis of the Union of Brest (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998), generally; Anthony Ugolnik, ‘Response to Fr. Peter Galadza: ‘Liturgical Latinization and Kievan Ecumenism’’, Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 35 (1995): 195-200, 196; Meyendorff, Orthodox Church, 101-109; Binns, Christian Orthodox Churches, 218-223.
25 The full title of the Union of Brest-Litovsk 1596 is ‘Articles for Which We Need Guarantees from the Lord Romans before We Enter into Unity with the Roman Church’ (‘Articles of Union’). The text of the Articles of Union is found in Gudziak, Crisis and Reform, Appendix 3. See also Meyendorff, Orthodox Church, 101-109; Binns, Christian Orthodox Churches, 218-223.
26 Roberson, ‘Brest, Union of’; Melling, ‘Ukrainian Catholic Church’; Cross and Livingstone, ‘Brest-Litovsk, Union of’; Gudziak, Crisis and Reform, generally; Meyendorff, Orthodox Church, 101-109.
27 Roberson, ‘Brest, Union of’.
28 Articles of Union, Articles 1-2 and 22-25, as cited in Gudziak, Crisis and Reform, Appendix 3.
29 Ibid, Articles 3-8.
30 Ibid, Article 9.
31 Ibid, Articles 10-12.
32 Ibid, Article 19.
33 Ibid, Articles 20-21. And see Melling, ‘Ukrainian Catholic church’.
34 Articles of Union, ‘Brest, Union of’, Article 1, as cited in Gudziak, Crisis and Reform, Appendix 3.
35 Galadza, ‘Liturgical Latinization’; Ugolnik, ‘Response to Fr. Peter Galadza’.

I would like to thank Bishop Peter Stasiuk, CSsR, Professor Charles J Russo, Fr Olexander Kenez, and the participants of the Soborchyk of the Eparchy of Sts Peter and Paul, 31 August-2 September 2004 for reading earlier versions of this article and for providing helpful comments. Any errors that remain are, of course, my own.