RECENT STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE UKRAINIAN GREEK- (2011-2015)

* PROGRESS, CHALLENGES AND OPEN QUESTIONS BY THE ERECTION OF NEW METROPOLIAS

THOMAS MARK NÉMETH

1. New Metropolias, and Exarchies in Ukraine

The Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church (hereafter UGCC), a Major Archiepiscopal Church, was canonically organized within the territory of Ukraine in only one metropolia since the restoration of Church structures after the political changes in 1989 which led to Ukraine’s independence in 1991. At the end of 2011, erected three new metropolias with the consent of the Synod of of the UGCC, after having consulted the Roman Apostolic See according to c. 85 §1 of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (hereafter CCEO or Eastern Code)1.

The current situation (as of February 2016) of the ecclesiastical structures of the UGCC in Ukraine is the following:

The Metropolia of L’viv consists of the Archeparchy of L’viv (1)2 and the Eparchies of Sokal’- Zhovkva (2), Stryi (3) and Sambir-Drohobych (4). Metropolitan Ihor Voznyak was installed on November 29, 2011.

The Metropolia of Ivano-Frankivs’k consists of the Archeparchy of Ivano-Frankivs’k (5) and the of Kolomyia-Chernivtsi (6). Metropolitan Volodymyr Viytyshyn was installed on December 13, 2011.

The Metropolia of Ternopil’-Zboriv consists of the Archeparchy of Ternopil’-Zboriv (9) and the Eparchies of Buchach (8) and Kam’iants-Podils’kyi (9)3. Metropolitan Vasyl Semeniuk was installed on December 22, 2011. However, the exact date of the erection of the two latter metropolias needs

*This article is an updated and slightly expanded version of my paper, which will soon be publishes in “Kanonika”: Recent Structural Developments in the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church (2011-2014). Progresses and Challenges by the Erection of New Metropolias. 1 Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, auctoritate Ioannis Pauli PP. II promulgatus, in: 82 (1990) 1033–1364. Ukrainian translation taken from: Kodeks Kanoniv Skhidnykh Tserkov. Latyns’ko- ukrains’ke vydannia, Rome 1996. 2 These numbers refer to the attached map of the Greek-Catholic eparchies and exarchies in Ukraine The crosses indicate episcopal sees. Arrows mark titles of an ecclesiastical circumscription, which are different from the place of the see. Double-sided arrows mark combined titles or, in the case of Odesa and Krym, commonly administered exarchies. Cathedrals are generally located at the episcopal see, however, in the Eparchy of Sokal’- Zhovkva the cathedral is located in the first city, the see in the second one (according to the of Mykhaylo Koltun, 03.03.2003, n° 03-64, a copy of which was kindly provided by Fr. Roman Synyts’kyi, the Chancellor of this eparchy). For special cases see also after note 6, before note 8, note 9 and the excursus in this chapter. I thank Mr. Michael Pfeifer (Aschaffenburg) for rearranging the map, which was made available by the Institute for Church History of the Ukrainian Catholic University. My gratitude also to representatives of several eparchies and exarchies for useful hints and comments. 3 On December 11, 2015, Radio Vatican informed about the erection of this Eparchy: Nova Ieparkhiia UHKTs v Ukraini (11.12.2015): http://news.ugcc.ua/news/nova_ieparhiya_ugkts_v_ukraini_75552.html (19.01.2016) 1 clarification4.

The fourth, already existing Metropolia of Kyiv-Halych, includes the Archeparchy of Kyiv (Kiev) (11) and the five Major Archiepiscopal Exarchies of Luts’k (12), Kharkiv (13), Odesa (14), Donets’k (15) and Krym (Crimea) (16), as well as the ancient See of Halych5. According to the Decree of Erection of Three New Metropolias6 Halych is subordinated to the Major Archbishop. However, according to some canonists of the UGCC the jurisdictional status of Halych needs clarification. The exarchies are governed in the name of the Major Archbishop (see c. 312 CCEO)7.

Therefore, the UGCC currently consists of 14 eparchies and exarchies within its home territory and 18 outside of it. There are 24 bishops* (including 3 emeriti) within and 28 (including 7 emeriti) outside of Ukraine. However, the existence of Church structures in the UGCC in Crimea, which has been illegally annexed by the Russian Federation, is unsure. The exarchy of Crimea, which has been separated from the exarchy of Odesa-Krym in 2014, has its see in Simferopol’, but there is at present neither a cathedral nor a residence. The of Odessa has been appointed as administrator of the Exarchy of Crimea, however, according to information from the end of 2015, this exarchy is administered “ad nutum Sanctae Sedis”. The civil authorities of Crimea still did not react to the request of parishes of the UGCC to become registered religious organizations8. The Eparchy of Mukachevo (Mukacheve) (7) which does not belong to the UGCC is a separate Church of the (Carpatho-)Ruthenian Rite directly under the authority of the Roman See, and is generally regarded as an own Church (see chapter *4).

4 The of Erection have been publishes in: Blahovisnyk Verkhovnoho Arkhyiepyskopa Kyievo- Halyts’koho Ukrains’koi Hreko-Katolyts’koi Tserkvy (L’viv) 2011, n° 1. There is the Decree of Erection of Three New Metropolias of the UGCC (08./21.11.2011[dates: Julian/Gregorian calendar]: ibid. 47–50. However, there are also decrees of the erections of each single metropolia: ibid. 51–52, 55–56, 59–60, see also 252–253, 255: L’viv: 08./21.11.2011; Ivano-Frankivs’k: 21.11./04.12.2011; Ternopil’-Zboriv: 25.11./08.12.2011. Unfortunately, these complementary documents do not specify the relationship between them and the date of the erection. According to c. 1511 CCEO the moment of the communication is decisive. The Annuario Pontificio (see the 2014 edition, 426, 322, 734) indicates the dates of the installation of the metropolitans. However, this information is not binding, so this matter requires further clarification. 5 For the Metropolia of Kyiv-Halych, see also the excursus below and the Decree of Erection of Three New Metropolias of the UGCC (note 4), 50. However, in the Annuario Pontificio (see the 2014 edition, 8, 1132, 1139) the exarchies, which can be found in the chapter of the Major Archiepiscopal Churches, are listed in the chapter “Rites of the Church” only after the other metropolitan sees (with their respective suffragan eparchies) in Ukraine. In the chapter “geographic distribution” the See of Kyiv is characterized as “senza suffr.” without mentioning the exarchies. 6 See Blahovisnyk Verkhovnoho Arkhyiepyskopa Kyievo-Halyts’koho Ukrains’koi Hreko-Katolyts’koi Tserkvy (L’viv) 2011, n° 1, 50, see also another decree, ibid. 56. 7 In 2011 there existed the Exarchies of Luts’k, Donets’k-Kharkiv and Odesa-Krym. For the Decrees of Erection see Blahovisnyk Verkhovnoho Arkhyiepyskopa Kyievo-Halyts’koho Ukrains’koi Hreko–Katolyts’koi Tserkvy Blazhenniishoho Liubomyra Husara (L’viv), n° 8, 2008, 63-66; Blahovisnyk Verkhovnoho Arkhyiepyskopa Kyievo-Halyts’koho Ukrains’koi Hreko–Katolyts’koi Tserkvy (L’viv) 2014, 58-61 . 8 See «Європейська Україна буде надійним другом і партнером європейської, демократичної та вільної Росії», – Блаженніший Святослав (11.11.2015), http://news.ugcc.ua/interview/yevropeyska_ukraina_bude_nadiynim_drugom_i_parterom_ievropeyskoi_demokr atichnoi_ta_vilnoi_rosii__blazhennishiy_svyatoslav_75295.html (19.01.2016); Яна Степанковська, Як українським церквам у Криму вдається залишатися українськими (14.01.2016), http://krymsos.com/news/yak-ukrayinskim-tserkvam-u-krimu-vdayetsya-zalishatisya-ukrayinskimi/ (21.01.2016). documents regarding the administration of this Exarchy have not been published yet. 2

The composition of the new metropolias involves practical, pastoral, but also historical and cultural aspects. The borders of the Metropolia of L’viv are those of the L’viv oblast (province). The Metropolia of Ivano-Frankivs’k includes the respective oblast and that of Chernivtsi. The Metropolia of Ternopil’ includes the oblasts of Ternopil’ and Khmelnyts’kyi, and the Metropolia of Kyiv the rest of Ukraine (with the exception of Transcarpathia)9. The three metropolias mentioned first are located in the territory with the most faithful of the UGCC. Historical-cultural connections and a common local ecclesiastical tradition can especially be seen within both Metropolias of L’viv and Ivano- Frankivs’k.

In an interview given on the occasion of the erection of the new metropolias, Mykhailo Dymyd explained some characteristics of the liturgical identity of each of the metropolias. According to him, the Metropolia of Ternopil’ has a strong “paraliturgical” tradition; the Metropolia of Ivano-Frankivs’k continues to follow the liturgical culture as codified by the legislation of the Synod of Zamość (1720), which means a stronger Latinization. Dymyd describes the Metropolia of L’viv with the term “postmodern”, meaning that it contains multiple liturgical trends, while the Metropolia of Kyiv represents the “Kyivan” tradition10. In my view however, a certain pluralism exists in each metropolia today, which depends on the local clergy or community. In any case, a metropolitan structure can be helpful for reducing tensions regarding different forms of Church identity. If the Church sui iuris as a whole is moving in one direction in liturgical matters, and this seems to be true for the UGCC, there is of course place for regional differences to exist legitimately on the level of the metropolias.

The creation of such territorial units can be helpful to improve the activity of the Church, in particular when some eparchies are structurally weak, in that they lack sufficient personal, educational, financial, and other resources, which is true in Ukraine. According to c. 133 CCEO, the metropolitan has the right “to ordain and enthrone bishops of the province […]; to convoke the metropolitan synod at the times fixed by the synod of bishops of the patriarchal church, to prepare in a timely manner items to be discussed in it, to preside at the synod, to transfer, prorogue, suspend or dissolve it; to erect the metropolitan tribunal; to exercise vigilance so that the faith and ecclesiastical discipline are accurately observed; to conduct a canonical visitation, if the eparchial bishop neglected to do so; to appoint or confirm a person who has been legitimately proposed for or elected to an office, if the eparchial bishop […] has failed to do so […]”. He also “represents the province in all juridic matters of the same”. Furthermore, the metropolia can help to solve local problems on that level, or support the common elaboration of pastoral measures.

For the first time in her history, the UGCC is now organized in more than one metropolia in its

9 Archeparchy of Kyiv: Oblasts of Kyiv, Rivne, Volyn’, Zhytomyr, Vinnytsia, Chernihiv, Cherkasy; Exarchy of Kharkiv: Oblasts of Kharkiv, Poltava, Sumy; Exarchy of Donets’k: Oblasts of Donets’k, Luhans’k, Dnipropetrovs’k, Zaporizhzhia, Kryvyi Rih; Exarchy of Odesa: Oblasts of Odesa, Kirovohrad, Mykolaiv, Kherson; Exarchy of Krym: Autonomous Republic of Krym. However, at the moment parts of the oblasts of Donets’k and Luhans’k (see the dotted line on the map) are occupied by pro-Russian separatists. The Exarch of Donets’k is currently outside of this city, where his see is located. 10 See Novi mytropolii UHKTs vidobrazhatymut’ spetsyfiku rehioniv – Doktor kanonichnoho prava o. Mykhailo Dymyd (11.11.2011): http://risu.org.ua/ua/index/expert_thought/interview/45366/ (19.01.2016). 3 homeland, even if it has had three metropolias outside her territory in the USA, in Canada, and in Poland. On May 12, 2014, a new metropolia of the UGCC was established in Brazil11. Historically, the UGCC stands in direct succession of the Kyivan Metropolia. This Church was de facto autonomous under the Patriarchate of Constantinople until it entered into full ecclesial communion with the Roman See at the Union of Brest (1595/96) 12. With the erection of the Metropolia of L’viv- Halych by the Bull of Pius VII In universalis Ecclesiae regimine (February 23, 1808)13, its new metropolitan received the same rights and privileges as the Kyivan Metropolitan. However, due to the influence of Latin ecclesiastical discipline, the power of the metropolitan was partially reduced. With the expansion of the Russian Empire towards the West, the Greek-Catholic Kyivan Metropolia was de facto suppressed in 1838/39, but canonically continued to exist as a vacant See14.

It is worth noting that the UGCC represents a particular case regarding its classification as a Church sui iuris. It did not become a (Major) Archiepiscopal Church according to cc. 324–339 Cleri Sanctitati15, but was only “recognized” as such by the Roman See in 196316. This step was primarily motivated “by the historical heritage of the Kyivan Church” not “by the actual level of development or capabilities” of the UGCC17. As early as 1930, Cyril Korolevsky regarded the UGCC as a Major

11 Metropolia Católica Ucrainiana São João Batista em Curitiba. See Stvorennia novoi mytropolii UHKTs – tse shche odyn krok do utverdzennia i vyznannia ii patriarshoi hidnosti – Hlava UHKTs (03.07.2014): http://news.ugcc.ua/video/stvorennya_novoi_mitropol%D1%96i_ugkts__tse_shche_odin_krok_do_utverdzhenn ya_%D1%96_viznannya_ii_patr%D1%96arshoi_g%D1%96dnost%D1%96__glava_ugkts_70972.html (19.03.2015). 12 See S. SENYK, A History of the Church in Ukraine, vol. I: To the End of the Thirteenth Century (= OCA 243), Rome 1993, 82–181; B. GUDZIAK, Crisis and Reform. The Kyjivan Metropolitanate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Genesis of the Union of Brest, Cambridge 1998; I. PATRYLO, Archiepiscopi- Metropolitani Kievo-Halicienses. Attentis praescriptis M. P. “Cleri sanctitati”, Ed. 2 (=Analecta OSBM Series II, Sectio I, Opera XVI), Rome 1962; P. P. LOZOVEI, De Metropolitarum Kioviensium Potestate (988–1596), Ed. 2 (=Analecta OSBM Series II, Sectio I, Opera XV), Rome 1962. 13 Ed. V. ADADUROV, Fundatsiia Halyts’koi Mytropolii u svitli dyplomatychnoho lystuvannia Avstrii ta Sviatoho Prestolu 1807–1808 rokiv: Zbirnyk dokumentiv, L’viv 2011, 167–172. For the dating of the Bull (1808 instead of 1807) see ibid., XLIX–LIII. For the interpretation of the Bull see Study Paper “The Territory of the Ukrainan Greco-Catholic Church” in: Logos - A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 35 (1994) 313–385, here 347–354. For the terminology see also A. MC VAY, Controversies over the Bishopric of Halych (31.12.2013): http://annalesecclesiaeucrainae.blogspot.de/2013/12/controversies-over-bishopric-of-halych.html (19.03.2015). For historical aspects see also O. TURIY, Do pytannia pro iurysdyktsiiu ta tytuluvannia mytropolitiv Kyivs’kykh i Halyts’kykh ta arkhyiepyskopiv L’vivs’kykh: istorychna retrospektyva: http://risu.org.ua/ua/index/monitoring/religious_digest/35490/ (19.03.2015) and the partially outdated, but still important book of J. PELESZ, Geschichte der Union der ruthenischen Kirche mit Rom von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart, 2 Volumes, Vienna 1880, 1881. For combined titles of episcopal Sees see: P. HOFMEISTER, Die Doppeltitel der Bischöfe, in: Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung 34 (1947) 172–252, here 195–196. 14 See Study Paper (note 13), 330; Th. M. NÉMETH, Eine Kirche nach der Wende. Die Ukrainische Griechisch- Katholische Kirche im Spiegel ihrer synodalen Tätigkeit (= Kirche und Recht 24), Freistadt 2005, 98–100. 15 PIUS XII, Cleri Sanctitati (02.06.1957), in: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 49 (1957) 433–603. See H. CHIMY, De figura iuridica archiepiscopi maioris in iure canonico orientali vigenti, Ed. 2 (=Analecta OSBM Series II, Sectio I, Opera XXIII), Rome 1968. 16 SACRA CONGREGATIO PRO ECCLESIA ORIENTALI, Declaratio (23.12.1963), in: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 56 (1964) 214. 17 P. SZABÓ, A nagyérseki egyház. A jogintézmény arculata a legújabb Szentszéki gyakorlata tükrében, in: Athanasiana 23 (2006) 139–175, here 157. For the idea of the “Kyivan Church” see A. CHIROVSKY, Toward an Ecclesial Self-Identity for the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church, in: Logos - A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 35 (1994) 83–123. 4

Archiepiscopal Church18. During the Soviet period, the UGCC existed within its territory as an underground Church and only had official Church structures in the diaspora. Nevertheless, even after Ukraine’s independence in 1991, the establishment of the new metropolias lasted until 2011 due to the social and political situation in Ukraine. However, this step of development could be considered as very logical in terms of the huge territory and the number of believers19.

Excursus: The Transfer of the Major Archiepiscopal See from L’viv to Kyiv

The above mentioned existence of the Kyivan Metropolia as a vacant See was ended by an ecclesiastical reorganization which resulted in the change of the title of the Major Archiepiscopal See from “L’viv” to “Kyiv-Halych” and to its transfer from L’viv to Kyiv (assent of the pope December 6, 2004 – official ceremony of this transfer August 21, 2005). The unification of the two metropolias under the title of “Kyiv-Halych” is mentioned in the Decree of Erection of Three New Metropolias of the UGCC20. However, the documents published so far do not give us a full picture of this procedure. A corresponding Decree of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches21 refers to the assent of the Pope on the same day to the decision of the Synod of Bishops of October 5–12, 2004 (according to can. 57 § 3 CCEO) to transfer the Major Archiepiscopal See and to the change of its title into “Kyiv- Halych”, while preserving the title of the Bishop of Kam’ianets’22. The assent was given after receiving a petition from the Major Archbishop dated October 18. However, there are diverging dates for the transfer of this see and the change of its title. On the one hand, the Annuario Pontificio (see the 2014 edition, 8) dates these events to December 6, 2004. The periodical of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches states: “L’Arcivescovo Maggiore […], con il consenso del Sinodo dei Vescovi, riunito a Kyiv dal 5 al 12 ottobre 2004, e ottenuto l’assenso del Romano Pontefice Giovanni Paolo II, il giorno 6 dicembre 2004, ha trasferito la propria Sede da Leopoli a Kyiv, cambiandone il titolo […]”23. Thus, the date of the assent seems to be juridically decisive, provided that this assent makes effective an act of the Major Archbishop, who has received the consent of the Synod. On the other hand, in some information given by the UGCC, this transfer and the change of the title are both dated August 21, 2005. On this day an “official communication” of the Major Archbishop about this event

18 See Nota intorno ai gradi Gerarchici Orientali, compilata dal. Rmo C. Korolewsky, in: Sacra Congregazione “Pro Ecclesia Orientali, Codificazione orientale, N. 63/30 [1930], 1–5, here 4. 19 According to The Eastern Catholic Churches 2014 (Source: Annuario Pontificio), 7: http://www.cnewa.org/source-images/Roberson-eastcath-statistics/eastcatholic-stat14.pdf (19.03.2015) there are about 3,8 million believers of the UGCC in Ukraine and 666.000 in the diaspora. However, there are no accurate data on Church membership. 20 See: Blahovisnyk 2011, n° 1 (note 4), 49. 21 Decree of December 6, 2004 (Prot. n°. 2/2005). My thanks to Dr. Oleg KHORTYK (Ternopil’) for the information that the decree of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches of December 6, 2004 (Prot. n°. 2/2005) can be found in his book: Status prawny Kościoła Arcybiskupiego Większego, Lublin 2006, 436, and for sending me a copy of this document. 22 However, this title had no jurisdictional consequences in the recent past, according to information provided by Dr. Khortyk. Since December 2015, there is an own Eparchy of Kam’ianets-Podil’s’kyi (see note 3). The title “Kyiv-Vyshhorod” of the former exarchy, which can be found only in the Annuario Pontificio 2006, 382, is no longer used. 23 Servizio Informazione Chiese Orientali 60 (2005) 47. 5 was read during a Liturgy in Kyiv24:

2. Major Archiepiscopal Churches and Metropolias

The Eastern Code provides no explicit criteria in case a Metropolitan Church sui iuris should become a Major Archiepiscopal Church. Péter Szabó has pointed out some structural requirements. First of all, a certain number of bishops is required for the smooth working of the synods and for judicial functions. Thus, there should be a minimum of 10 to 12 bishops or at least a realistic perspective of such an increase25.

Another question is whether a Major Archiepiscopal Church requires more than one metropolia. Formally this is neither the case in the Eastern Code nor in the actual practice of the Roman See. Except for the UGCC, there are currently three more Catholic Major Archiepiscopal Churches. The Syro-Malabar Church already had two ecclesiastical provinces when it became a Major Archiepiscopal Church in 1992. The Syro-Malankar Church obtained this sui iuris status in 2005, and erected a second metropolia one year later. The Romanian Church became a Major Archiepiscopal Church in the same year. Until now, it includes only one province, but also consists of a sufficient number of eparchies to establish a second one26.

However, according to Cyril Korolevsky, who virtually “invented” the notion of an Eastern Catholic Major Archbishop, the existence of metropolias is somehow a logical element of the juridical figure of such a Church sui iuris: “I grandi Arcivescovi sono veri Capi di Chiese particolari, hanno sotto di loro Metropoliti con i relativi suffraganei, talvolta Arcivescovi semplici o minori, ed esercitano giurisdizione patriarcale”27.

The stated in (hereafter OE): “What has been said about patriarchs holds true also, in accordance with the norm of the law, of major archbishops who are in charge of a whole particular church or rite”28. The context of this insertion about Major Archbishops was as a result of discussions about the patriarchal status of some Eastern Churches, for instance the UGCC. It is worth noting that OE 10 quoted two papal documents regarding the UGCC: the Bull of Pope Clement VIII Decet Romanum Pontificem (February 23, 1596)29 and the already

24 UHKTs ofitsiino povidomyla pro perenesennia osidku Hlavy Tserkvy zi L’vova do Kyieva (22.08.2005): http://zik.ua/ua/news/2005/08/22/17119 (19.03.2015); see also U Hlavy UHKTs zminyvsia osidok i ty[tul]: http://kyivsobor.clcd.ru/content/view/63/ (19.03.2015); Blahovisnyk Arkhyiepyskopa Kyievo-Halyts’koho Ukrains’koi Hreko-Katolyts’koi Tserkvy blazhennishoho Liubomyra Kardynala Huzara (L’viv) 2005, n° 5, 155– 156. 25 See SZABÓ, A nagyérseki egyház (note 17), 145–148. However, the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church today has 8 bishops (including one bishop outside of the territory of this Church). See Biserica Română Unită cu Roma, Greco-Catolică: http://www.bru.ro/ (19.03.2015). 26 See SZABÓ, A nagyérseki egyház (note 17), 152–154, 158–161. 27 Nota intorno (note 18), 3. 28 CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, Decretum de Ecclesiis Orientalibus Catholicis (21.11.1964), in: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57 (1965), 76–85, n° 10: “Quae de Patriarchis sunt dicta, valent etiam, ad normam iuris, de Archiepiscopis maioribus, qui universae cuidam Ecclesiae particulari seu ritui praesunt”. 29 Ed. A. G. WELYKYJ, Documenta Pontificum Romanorum historiam Ucrainae illustrantia (1075–1953) (=Analecta OSBM Series II, Sectio III), vol. 1, Rome 1953, 313–319. 6 mentioned Bull In universalis Ecclesiae regimine (1808)30, which can be seen as a reference to the supra-metropolitan character of this Church.

C. 151 CCEO declares that “a major archbishop is the metropolitan of a see determined or recognized by the supreme authority of the Church, who presides over an entire Eastern Church sui iuris that is not distinguished with the patriarchal title”31. In cc. 152–154 the Eastern Code implemented the similarity of Major Archiepiscopal Churches to Patriarchal Churches in that they enjoy the same degree of autonomy. However, Patriarchs hold the precedence of honor before Major Archbishops, and the latter require a confirmation of their election. In the light of the codification32, these canons show the “supra-metropolitan” character of Major Archbishops, who, like the Patriarchs (see c. 56 CCEO), preside over a “ʼfullʻ Church”33. On the other hand there is no canonical requirement for more than one ecclesiastical province in such Churches. Unlike the , the Major Archbishop is per definitionem a metropolitan. However, according to c. 80, 1°-3° CCEO both hierarchs exercise the role of a metropolitan “in all places where provinces have not been erected” and “during the vacancy of a metropolitan see”.

Historically, the three-tier Church structure mostly disappeared among the Eastern Churches. The Catholic Patriarchal Churches seem to have currently a two-tier hierarchy34. Although in the Orthodox Church there exist different forms of Church autonomy, only the Romanian Church has a full metropolitan system with corresponding synods. Furthermore, the Russian Church recently made steps for establishing metropolitan districts, which have their own synod and greater autonomy, and metropolias, which have only a bishops’ council35. Thus, from a broader ecclesiological, historical

30 See note 13. 31 “Archiepiscopus maior est Metropolita Sedis determinatae vel agnitae a suprema Ecclesiae auctoritate, qui toti cuidam Ecclesiae orientali sui iuris titulo patriarchali non insignatae praeest”. 32 “[…] Metropolita [sui iuris …] qui potestate quidem superepiscopali gaudet, sed caret potestate supra- metropolitana quae de iure propria est Patriarchae et etiam Archiepiscopi Maioris”: “Schema canonum de constitutione hierarchica de Ecclesiarum orientalium”, in: Nuntia 19 (1984) 14. For the codification from Vatican II to the CCEO and the juridical figure of the Major Archbishop see G. THANCHAN, The Juridical Institution of Major Archbishop in Oriental Law (= Dharmaram Canonical Studies 2), Bangalore 2002, 18–67. 33 SZABÓ, A nagyérseki egyház (note 17), 151. The content and context of these canons supports this statement. However, it is questionable whether one should rely on the wording of c. 151 CCEO itself. Szabó seems to refer to “tota Ecclesia”, however, this (as well as “universa Ecclesia” in OE 10; see notes 22, 25) means that the Major Archbishop is the head of an entire Church sui iuris, not of a (structurally) complete Church. 34 According to the Annuario Pontificio (see the 2014 edition, 637, 769, 1120, 1138) the Archeparchy of Urmyā with its suffragan eparchy of Salmas appears to be an exception on a structural level. Nevertheless, they are united in the person of the bishop since 1930. This view is supported by information from Archbishop Ramzi Garmou (Teheran). However, according to the website of the archeparchy (http://www.urmi.org/ [19.03.2015]) currently there seems to exist only one Archeparchy of Urmyā-Salmas. This matter could not be fully clarified. In the Melkite Church (see Annuario Pontificio 2014, 80, 621, 763, 1121, 1138) the Eparchies of Baniyas, Saïdā and Tripoli seem to be suffragan eparchies of the Metropolia of Tyr. However, according to information by Archbishop Elie Bechara Haddad (Saïdā) this is not the case. 35 See PATRIARHIA ROMȂNĂ (ed.), Statutul pentru organizarea şi funcţionarea Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, Bucarest 2008, Art. 6, 110–114; for amendments see another version of this statute under the title “Statut BOR APROBAT de Sf. Sinod 17.02.2011”, which includes modifications and explanations: http://www.arhiepiscopiabucurestilor.ro/index.php/documente/finish/7-secretariat-eparhial-relatii-publice/28- statut-bor-aprobat-de-sf-sinod-17-02-2011/0 (19.03.2015), P. BRUSANOWSKI, Über die Änderungen der Bistumsgrenzen der rumänisch-orthodoxen Metropolitanprovinzen Siebenbürgens und des Banats (16.-21. Jahrhundert)”, in Ostkirchliche Studien 61 (2012) 210–244, here 210–211, 242–244; Ustav Russkoi 7 and practical point of view, it is inappropriate to demand a metropolitan structure for Patriarchal or quasi-Patriarchal Churches.

3. Synodal Structures in Ukraine

From a structural point of view, it might be surprising that two metropolias in Ukraine have only one suffragan eparchy. Despite the fact that this arrangement is possible, for an ordinary synodal structure to function, there should be at least three bishops in each metropolia. Today there is still no synodal activity within the Ukrainian metropolias, although the elaboration of synodal statutes is continuing36. According to c. 137 CCEO, the Synod of Bishops “is to define in greater detail the rights and obligations of metropolitans and of the metropolitan synods according to the legitimate customs of its own patriarchal Church and also the circumstances of time and place”. The Synod of Bishops of the UGCC, which I do not discuss here, has already made some decisions regarding the relationship between the metropolias, the Major Archbishop, and the synod itself. However, these decisions have still not been published.

Since 2000, a “Synod of Bishops of the Metropolia of Kyiv-Halych” has been functioning in Ukraine37, and, in 2007, was renamed the Synod of Bishops of the Major Archbishopric of Kyiv- Halych (hereafter SB-KH). An explanation for this does not appear to have been published. In 2009, the Synod of Bishops of the UGCC “foreseeing the erection of new metropolias, considering the pastoral needs of our Church and having informed the Roman Apostolic See about its desire”, came to the following decision: “To grant the Major Archbishop the right to convoke a synod of all bishops of the UGCC, who operate within the territory of Ukraine, to decide on current issues and to pass generally mandatory norms (decision 40)”38.

On December 2, 2011, the Major Archbishop promulgated this decision and at the same time erected a Synod of Bishops of the Major-Archbishopric, whose structure, competencies and activity should be determined by a statute, which must be confirmed by the Synod of Bishops. Today, such an internal statute exists, but it has not yet been published.

In my opinion, clarification is needed regarding the canonical status of the SB-KH. On the one hand, it is a purpose of particular law “to complement the common law”39. Laws and decisions of the Synod of Bishops in general do not require the involvement of the Roman Pontiff or the Apostolic See, only

Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi [2013], chapter XIII, XIV: https://mospat.ru/ru/documents/ustav/, English version: https://mospat.ru/en/documents/ustav/ (19.03.2015); R. POTZ, E. M. SYNEK, Orthodoxes Kirchenrecht. Eine Einführung. Aktualisierte und erweitere zweite Auflage (= Kirche und Recht 28), Freistadt 2014, 138, 323, 450– 452. 36 I would like to thank Dr. Vitaliy Tokar (Ivano-Frankivs’k) for information about the recent developments in the UGCC. 37 This term was problematic until the above-mentioned ecclesiastical reorganization in 2004/05. See NÉMETH, Eine Kirche nach der Wende (note 13), 121–125. 38 Blahovisnyk 2011, n° 1 (note 4), 180. 39 J. FARIS, Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance according to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, New York 1992, 293. 8 a subsequent notification of the former (c. 111 §3 CCEO)40, except for some important matters, which are specified in the Eastern Code. On the other hand, the common law did not make provision for supra-metropolitan synods, with the power of passing legislative acts, except for the Synod of Bishops of the Church sui iuris. Furthermore, according to c. 985 § 2 CCEO legislative power in the Church possessed by “a legislator below the supreme authority […] cannot be validly delegated […]”. Since such a delegation by the Synod of Bishops is not possible in singular cases, it is all the more impossible to create a new legislative structure (argumentum a minori ad maius). Such a step seems to require an explicit authorization by the Roman See – in this case, even by the Roman Pontiff himself, not just by the Congregation for the Oriental Churches41. The question is, whether such an authorization was given. There is, however, no information regarding this question.

In addition, the SB-KH cannot be seen as a streamlined version of the Synod of Bishops of the Church sui iuris. The reason lies in the wording of c. 102 § 2 CCEO42. This canon seems to be inspired by the situation of the UGCC, which has still more bishops outside its territory than within43. However, this canon only allows for the possibility to restrict the vote of bishops from the diaspora, but not their membership.

It should also be noted, that according to c. 110 § 1 CCEO, the Synod of Bishops “is exclusively competent to make laws for the entire patriarchal Church which obtain force according to the norm of can. 150, §§ 2 and 3”44. If we accept the position of Helmuth Pree, the exclusive field of legislation of the Synod of Bishops is the entire UGCC, and not merely the Ukrainian part of it, even if the synod can enact only liturgical laws outside the territory of this Church. Furthermore, the allocation of competences given in the quoted canons cannot be altered45.

40 See J. ABBASS, A Legislative History of the Eastern Canons on Synod of Bishops and Council of Hierarchs, in: L. SABBARESE (ed.), Strutture sovraepiscopali nelle Chiese Orientali, Rome 2001, 41–74, here 64–65. 41 See JOHN PAUL II, (28.06.1998), in: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 80 (1988) 841–934, Art. 18; Idem, General Regulations of the Roman (30.04.1999), in: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 91 (1999) 629–699, Art. 125. 42 C. 102 § 2 CCEO: “With regard to eparchial bishops constituted outside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church and titular bishops, particular law can restrict their deliberative vote, remaining intact the canons concerning the election of the patriarch, bishops and candidates for office mentioned in can. 149”. 43 See I. ŽUŽEK, “Canons Concerning the Authority of Patriarchs over the Faithful of their Own Rite Who Live Outside the Limits of Patriarchal Territory”, in: IDEM, Understanding the Eastern Code (= Kanonika 8), Rome 1997, 29–69, here 64. 44 C. 150 § 2 CCEO: “Laws enacted by the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and promulgated by the patriarch, have the force of law everywhere in the world if they are liturgical laws. However, if they are disciplinary laws or in the case of other decisions of the synod, they have the force of law within the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church”. § 3: “Eparchial bishops constituted outside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church, who desire to do so, can attribute the force of law to disciplinary laws and other decisions of the synod in their own eparchies, provided they do not exceed their competence; if, however, these laws or decisions are approved by the Apostolic See, they have the force of law everywhere in the world”. 45 See H. PREE, “Il ruolo dell’interpretazione dello ius commune nell’identificare lo spazio a disposizione delle legislazioni particolari: un CCEO rigido o flessibile?”, in: Eastern 2 (2013) 1, 177–200, here 190, 198. A different opinion is held by P. SZABÓ, “Ancora sulla sfera dell’autonomia disciplinare dell’Ecclesia sui iuris”, in: Folia Canonica 6 (2003) 157–213, here 165; IDEM, “Autonomia disciplinare come carattere del fenomeno dell’ Ecclesia sui iuris: abito e funzioni”, in: L. OKULIK (ed.), Le Chiese sui iuris. Criteri di individuazione e delimitazione. Atti del Convegno svolto a Košice (Slovacchia) 6–7.03.2004, Venice 2005, 67– 9

The issue of this specific synod shows that the Church structures proposed by the Eastern Code do not fully meet the needs of the UGCC. The SB-KH was created to enable the bishops in Ukraine to discuss and make decisions on current matters concerning Ukraine, more frequently than at the Synod of Bishops of the (whole) UGCC once a year. It is also obvious that in the actual political situation, decision-making at a national level takes priority over the erection of four metropolitan synods. Most of the decisions of the SB-KH refer to the coordination of pastoral activity in Ukraine46. However, this Synod has also confirmed “Norms for the Service of the Holy Liturgy” and an order for Parishes of the Major Archbishopric47. These norms seem to be legally binding. Particularly in times of change, there is a strong need for re-establishing legal certainty quickly regarding the bodies concerned, as the validity of canonical acts depends on it48.

4. Current Territorial Questions

In his interview, Mykhailo Dymyd expressed the view that it would be “natural”, if the Eparchy of Mukachevo would become a part of the UGCC as an “autonomous metropolia”49. The metropolitan structure of the UGCC could make it possible to take into account the specific characteristics of the Church of Mukachevo and to preserve its heritage. In my view, this issue seems more delicate, even in the case of some synodal form of autonomy.

The Greek-Catholic Eparchy of Mukachevo was canonically erected in 1771, following the Church Union of Uzhhorod in 1646. The origins of this Byzantine-rite eparchy are in dispute, as well as its relationship to the Kyivan and Galician Church. Despite commonalities in ecclesiastical tradition, influences and attempts of unification by these Churches, there is no evidence for a jurisdictional subordination of the Eparchy of Mukachevo under said Churches50. During the period of Austro- Hungarian rule, this eparchy was located in the Hungarian part of the monarchy, while the Galician eparchies were located in the Austrian part. This eparchy continues to maintain its own historical and

96, here 74. According to the author, the legislator sui iuris can also pass norms “for a single eparchy or other inferior organizational units”. 46 The decisions of this synod and of the former metropolitan synod have been published on the website of the UGCC (http://news.ugcc.ua/documents/ [23.01.2016]) and in the official organ Blahovisnyk. 47 Postanovy P’iatdesiat deviatoi sesii [decision 3], in: Blahovisnyk Verkhovnoho Arkhyiepyskopa Kyievo- Halyts’koho Ukrains’koi Hreko–Katolyts’koi Tserkvy (L’viv) 2013, 249; Normy sluzhinnia Bozhestvennoi Liturhii: Ibid., 252–254; Postanovy Shistdesiat p’iatoi sesii Synodu Yepyskopiv [decision 2], in: Blahovisnyk Verkhovnoho Arkhyiepyskopa Kyievo-Halyts’koho Ukrains’koi Hreko–Katolyts’koi Tserkvy (L’viv) 2014, 301. 48 Regarding the need for an examination of the legislative activity of the UGCC during the last decades see NÉMETH, Eine Kirche nach der Wende (note 13), 91–94; IDEM, “Zum Partikularrecht der Ukrainischen Griechisch-Katholischen Kirche”, in: Ostkirchliche Studien 58 (2009) 311–318, here 312–313. See also below, note 53. 49 Novi mytropolii (note 10). 50 See V. I. FENYCH, “Kyivs’ka Tserkva” i Mukachivs’ka yeparkhiia: vidomi ta nevidomi storinky “neprochytanoi” istorii XIV–XVII st., in: Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorods’koho universytetu (Uzhhorod) 21 (2008), Seriia istoriia, 3–14; IDEM, „Halychyna i Mukachivs’ka yeparkhiia (do 1771 r.)“, in Tysiacholittia – Millennia. Naukovyi shchorichnyk (Uzhhorod) 1 (2014) 89–103. For the history of the eparchy see also A. PEKAR, Narys Istorii Tserkvy Zakarpattia, vol. 1: Yerarkhichne oformlennia (Analecta OSBM Series II, Sectio 1, 22), Rome 1967; vol. II: Vnutrishne istoriia (Analecta OSBM Series II, Sectio I, 50), Rome 1997; T. VÉGHSEŐ, “…mint igaz egyházi ember…”. A történelmi Munkácsi Egyházmegye görög katolikus egyházának létrejötte és 17. századi fejlődése (= Collectanea Athanasiana, I. Studia, vol. 4), Nyíregyháza 2011. 10 ecclesiastical identity. Its faithful belong to different ethnic groups (Ukrainians, Hungarians, Rusyns, Slovaks, Romanians). Some of them argue, that the historically grown diversity is a reason for maintaining the jurisdictional independence of this eparchy. However, there are unifying tendencies in Church life today in relation to the UGCC and some faithful of this eparchy want to become part of this Church.

In 1995, the Roman See recognized the jurisdiction of the Major Archbishop and the Synod of the UGCC over all Greek-Catholic Church communities in Ukraine that did not yet belong to another jurisdiction as the Eparchy of Mukachevo. However, point 3 of the same decree recommended in n° 3 “to study further how to regulate the relationship and the collaboration between the Eparchy of Mukachevo and the Major Archbishopric of L’viv to guarantee better pastoral care for all faithful in Transcarpathia”51. Dymyd´s recommendation to resolve the question through the establishment of a metropolia belonging to the UGCC has already been proposed in 1994 by the Apostolic Nuncio Mons. Antonio Franco, but has not been accepted by the concerned eparchy52.

Account must also be taken of the fact that the Eparchy of Mukachevo is historically the Mother Church of the Byzantine Churches of Slovakia, Hungary, and in a broader sense, of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh and of the Apostolic Exarchy in the Czech Republic, all of which belong to the Carpatho- Ruthenian Church tradition. Currently the Annuario Pontificio53 distinguishes between a Ukrainian and a Ruthenian Church and their respective rite54. The latter “Church” includes the two sui iuris Churches of Mukachevo, Pittsburgh and the Czech Exarchy55. The subordination of the Eparchy of Mukachevo to the UGCC by the Roman See would not only imply the elimination of jurisdictional independence, it would also raise the question how to guarantee the diversity in patrimony canonically. This example illustrates that the differentiation and allocation of Eastern Churches, according to certain criteria, is a very complex and discussed ongoing process.

For those who support unity with the UGCC, the exclusion of only one Greek-Catholic eparchy in Ukraine from synodal decision-making by the latter Church is problematic at the present time. First of all, the coexistence of those two Churches could become obstructive to pastoral care, development, and cooperation in Ukraine. Furthermore, this situation might create a problem for the credibility of

51 SACRA CONGREGATIO PRO ECCLESIIS ORIENTALIBUS, Decretum Prot. n°. 249/95, 30 December 1995. 52 See, also for the period of 1990 until 2000: NÉMETH, Eine Kirche nach der Wende (note 13), 135–140; 100– 101; YU. KOSSEI, Pomichnyk yepyskop Yosyf Holovach i yoho zasluhy, Uzhhorod 2001, 250–285. 53 See the 2014 edition, 1136, 1139. During the Habsburg Monarchy the term “Rutheni” referred to the East Slavic people in Galicia, Transcarpathia and in Bukowina. From 1944 until 1961, the Annuario Pontificio subsumed both the Galician and the Transcarpathian Greek-Catholics under the term “Rutheni”. See C. VASIL’, “Etnicità delle Chiese sui iuris e l`Annuario Pontificio”, in: OKULIK, Le Chiese sui iuris (note 39) 99–100, 103–104. 54 According to c. 28 CCEO: “a rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony […] manifested in each Church sui iuris”. For the “Ruthenian Catholic Church” see the overview by M. J. KUCHERA, The Norms of Particular Law of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburg, U.S.A., in: R. POTZ, K. KATERELOS (ed.), Partikularrecht (= Kanon 23), Hennef 2014, 27–48, here 46–48. 55 See VASIL’, Etnicità (note 53), 107; M. J. KUCHERA, The Church of Pittsburgh and its Relations with the Eparchy of Mukačevo in an Historical and Juridical Context, in: OKULIK, Le Chiese sui iuris (note 45), 181– 191, here 182. 11

Church unity. Finally, some believe that, in one state, there should exist only one Greek-Catholic Church sui iuris. This question has also a historical-political dimension. There seems to be a collision of a “ukrainocentric” and a “regiocentric” identity.

When asked about Transcarpathia, Major Archbishop Sviatoslav said that this question should be transferred from an ideological to an ecclesiastical level. He mentioned that the collaboration with Bishop Milan Šášik of Mukachevo, who – without having a voting right – also attends the Synod of Bishops of the UGCC and the SB-KH, is “very constructive. […] Thus, we try to promote and to develop this bond between the UGCC and the Eparchy of Mukachevo. Obviously, this development of our Church, after a certain time, will lead to a deepening of our unity. A de facto unity is always followed by a de iure unity. And this is the most important thing for us. I suppose we have to move further in this direction”56.

The status quo of the relationship between those two Churches is still a matter of discussion. In general, it seems to be a matter of position and interest, whether one stresses what unites or what distinguishes. A proper approach requires the integration of the interests of all concerned parties, as this matter affects different ecclesiastical, liturgical, linguastic, cultural and ethnical forms of identity.

A similar question concerns the integration of the Metropolia of Przemyśl-Warsaw (Poland) into the territory of the UGCC. The Eparchy of Przemyśl was part of the ancient Metropolias of Kyiv and of Halych, but today, as the Archeparchy of Przemyśl-Warsaw, is located in the “diaspora”57. According to Dymyd, this Metropolia should become part of the territory of the UGCC. If the eparchy of Mukachevo will remain an own Church sui iuris, “state borders should not affect the Church jurisdiction”58 in the case of Poland. However, there seem to be no indications for a change in the status of this metropolia.

5. Conclusion

The erection of new metropolias in 2011 was already expected and a logical step in the structural development of the UGCC. However, there is still a need for improvement to safeguard a canonically functioning Church organism, in particular, the elaboration of a stable normative framework, and a guarantee of legal certainty regarding the SB-KH. The latter problem is indeed of much greater canonical impoertance than the question of the date of the erection of the Metropolias of Ivano- Frankivs’k and Ternopil’-Zboriv and the question of the jurisdiction of the Major Archbishop in Halych. The question of the date of the transfer of the See of the Major Archbishop from L’viv to Kyiv seems to cause no canonical problems, but shows, that in the UGCC there is still a need for clarification. Futher, the introduction of synodal activity at the level of metropolias could be an

56 Patriarkh Sviatoslav (Shevchuk): “Ya dali buduvatymu Patriarkhat” (18.07.2011): http://risu.org.ua/ua/index/expert_thought/interview/43376/ (23.01.2016). 57 See L. ADAMOWICZ, “Profilo giuridico della Chiesa Greco-cattolica ucraina in Polonia”, in: L. OKULIK (ed.), Nuove terre e nuove Chiese. Le communità di fedeli orientali in diaspora (= Istituto di diritto canonico San Pio X, Studi 7), Venice 2008, 161–175. 58 Novi mytropolii (note 10). 12 improvement.

It should be emphasized that in 2014 the Synod of Bishops approved a Particular Law of the UGCC for an experimental period of three years, which entered into force on April 7, 201559. Major Archbishop Sviatoslav regarded the new metropolias as a “very important step in the natural Church development towards a Patriarchate”60. The UGCC enjoys high authority in Ukrainian society, in particular, after the political events of 2014, and is a pastorally very active and developing Church. With the erection of metropolias, the UGCC became a structurally complete Church sui iuris as well. It is not only the largest, but also one of the most dynamically evolving Eastern Catholic Churches. Its new metropolitan system can become an important support to fulfill its mission as a local Church.

59 Kanony Partykuljarnoho Prava Ukrajins’koji Hreko-Katolyc’koji Cerkvy: Specvypusk „Blahovisnyka Verchovnoho Archyjepyskopa Kyjevo-Halyc’koho Ukrajins’koji Hreko-Katolyc’koji Cerkvy 2015 roku. Berezen’ 2015, L’viv 2015, 7-51: http://ugcc.tv/media/files/partykulyarne_pravo1.pdf (21.01.2016); Dekret prohološennja kanoniv partykuljarnoho prava UHKC (12.03.2015), in: Ibid., 3–5: http://ugcc.ua/official/official- documents/kanony/dekret_progoloshennya_kanon%D1%96v_partikulyarnogo_prava_ugkts_73363.html (21.01.2016). See: Th. M. NÉMETH, Das neue Partikularrecht der Ukrainischen Griechisch-Katholischen Kirche – eine erste Stellungnahme. This article will appear soon in the Festschrift for Heribert Hallermann. For earlier stages of the codification of the Particular Law see T. T. MARTYNYUK, “Problemi e prospettive della codificazione del diritto particolare della Chiesa Greco-Catholica Ucraina”, in: PONTIFICIO CONSIGLIO PER I TESTI LEGISLATIVI (ed.), Il Codice delle Chiese Orientali. La Storia, le legislazioni particolari e le prospettive ecumeniche, Atti del Convegno di Studio tenutosi nel XX anniversario della promulgazione del Codice dei Canoni delle Chiese Orientali, Roma 8-9 ottobre 2010, Vatican City 2011, 249–271; Th. M. NÉMETH, “Canons of the Particular Law” of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church: A Critical Report”, in: Š. MARINČÁK (ed.), Sväté Tajomstvá na kresťanskom Východe (= Orientalia et Occidentalia 3), Košice 2008, 351–368; P. SZABÓ, “Elaboration of the ius particulare sui iuris in the Byzantine Catholic Churches”, in: M. AOUN, J.-M. TUFFERY-ANDRIEU (ed.), Le ius particulare dans le droit canonique actuel. Définitions, domains d’ application, enjeux. Actes du Colloque tenu à Strasbourg le 6 mai 2011, organisé par l’Institut de droit canonique et le Centre PRISME-Sdre (UMR7012) de l’Université de Strasbourg, Perpignan 2013, 157– 171, here 163–166. Concerning the problematic announcement of the Particular Law from 2001/02 (see NÈMETH, Zum Partikularrecht [note 42] 312–313), O. KHORTYK (Partykuliarne pravo UHKTs: dubium iuris aut activum iuris?, in: Μέτρον [L’viv] 10–11 [2014] 257–267) argued that with the publication of the “Blahovisnyk” 2008 these canons entered into force. However, he did not specify a precise date. 60 V UHKTs try novi mytropolii: http://www.ugcc.org.ua/news_single.98.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=6446&cHash=9da105d0cec0a1db4e2be0fb2 5d97cd4 (19.03.2015). 13