Pope Pius XI and the Order of the White Eagle

Polish Government officials have been playing politics with the Order of the White Eagle since it’s reconstitution in resurrected Poland in February 1921. Emblematic of this is the incident the occurred with the Vatican Ambassador, the Apostolic Nuncio, in April of that same year.

At the end of the First World War, Poland regained its independence after having been partitioned by the imperial powers of Russia, Prussia, and Austria between 1772 and 1793. A Polish State had been declared independent several times by one or more of the major European powers since 1793. In November 1918, under the charismatic revolutionary Józef Piłsudski, Poland achieved independence on its own, even before the victorious Entente could concede it. A wave of national pride ensued that sometimes exceeded the bounds of ordinary patriotism. Throughout the coming two decades, it often manifested itself as form of national chauvinism that parallelled the ethno-nationalisms which would spread across Europe and eventually engulfed Germany.

            A few months prior to independence, in May 1918, the Holy See had dispatched the Prefect of the Vatican Library, Monsignor Achille Ratti, as envoy (Apostolic Visitor) to reconstruct the Catholic Church and its hierarchy which had been reduced to a sorry state under Prussia and Russia. Ratti was to recommend candidates for the largely vacant episcopal sees, take stock of the situation, and return to Rome before Christmas. His itinerary had to be modified following Polish independence. The interim government asked for Ratti to be named Apostolic Nuncio, the first papal ambassador to Poland since 1796. In the meantime, he had fallen in love with Poland and, to further good relations, chose to be consecrated a bishop in Warsaw on 19 October 1919. On the invitations, he wrote that, by the power of the Holy Spirit, he was being reborn as a Pole: Non sine Sanctissimi Patris beneplacito, cui placuit ut qua Episcopis certo quodam modo Polonus in Spiritu Sancto renascar.

           Ratti had been chosen for the Polish assignment because he was perceived to be neutral, and he quickly established an excellent raport with the Church hierarchy and with Piłsudski and his ministers. His popularity reached an apex in August 1920, when the Bolsheviks drove Piłsudski’s conquering army out of Ukraine all the way back to the gates of Warsaw. This highly mythologized episode is known in Polish history as “The Miracle of the Vistula.”  

During the crisis, Ratti received the diplomatic corps daily at the Apostolic Nunciature to discuss the deteriorating situation. The Nuncio received orders from the Vatican to accompany the Government, as it prepared to abandon the capital. The entire diplomatic corps got on a special train to Poznań, but Ratti ordered his staff to take refuge in Vienna. As to himself, he remained in Warsaw with the last member of the Government, the Foreign Minister, Prince Eustachy Sapieha. By the time the Red Army was driven back and the city saved, the Nuncio’s prestige had been considerably strengthened. He had been the only member of the diplomatic corps to have remained.

Ratti was enamored by Polish culture and religious piety but because critical of Polish chauvinism during its conflicts with Lithuania and Western Ukraine. The old fashioned values preached by the social elites and the demonstrative piety of the simple folk stood in stark contrast with the rising ethno-nationalism preached by Roman Dmowski and his National Democratic Party (ND or Endecja). By the time the Polish borders were settled in 1921, the population was made up of two third ethnic Poles and one third ethnic minorities (mainly Ukrainians, Jews and Germans). Piłsudski sought to anchor this diverse national identity in loyalty to the Polish State, while Dmowski and the Endeks sought to assimilate the minorities. When social prejudice and legal discrimination did not work, they resorted to violence.

            Neither Ratti nor the nuncios who succeeded him could do much to mitigate this intolerance. Polish chauvinism became a constant preoccupation for the nuncio and his reports, especially from the middle of 1919 onward, are full of concern for its consequences for the Catholic Church and the nation. The Holy See were worried that, through exaggeration and reprisals, Poland might create too many enemies within and without, thus endangering its very survival.

Archbishop Ratti succeeded only in mitigating the worst reprisals but endemic abuse and discrimination was destined to become more violent in the coming decade. The “hypersensitive” Poles (in Ratti and his secretary’s own words) demanded unconditional support from the Holy See and even interpreted church decisions according to political paradigms. 

A wave of patriotic outrage brought an end to Achille Ratti’s mission in Poland. The occasion were plebiscites ordered by the Versailles Treaty for territories with a mixed German and Polish population, especially Upper Silesia. An Allied Commission had been appointed to monitor the plebiscite as the situation in Upper Silesia deteriorated into warfare. The Polish Episcopate also asked the Holy See to appoint an “ecclesiastical commissioner” because the higher clergy and social elites of the region were almost all German whereas the lower clergy and general population was mostly Polish. After considering several candidates, the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, settled on the Nuncio. 

Ratti was supposed to remain an impartial observer and coordinate the Church’s response with the local Archbishop, Cardinal Bertram, who was a German. Ratti’s warnings to Rome of the “gravity of the situation and the unreliability of Bertram” went unheeded.  Bertram published a decree limiting the participation of the lower clergy (mostly Poles) and claimed he had done so with the blessing of the Nuncio. Outmaneuvered, Ratti returned to Warsaw and sought to save the nunciature’s credibility by issuing a clarification. From the Vatican, Gasparri refused to allow this, fearing that this would only inflame the situation.

Both Germans and Poles accused Ratti of being favourable to the opposing side and he was violently attacked in the Polish press. A motion was brought forward in Polish Parliament to expel the nuncio but was defeated. Even the Polish hierarchy privately expressed bitter disappointment, believing that Ratti had not properly informed the Holy See or impeded Bertram from acting against Polish interests. 

Ratti dispatched a strongly worded letter to Gasparri, offering to act as a scape goat if it would preserve the honour of the Holy See. At the same time, he astutely sent his secretary to Rome to clarify his conduct. Gasparri accepted that Ratti had only followed instructions and accepted responsibility himself. Pope Benedict XV wrote a very personal letter to Ratti, in an intimate style that was virtually unknown between pontiffs and their underlings: 

 

My Dear Monsignor, I heartily reciprocate your good wishes. Your letter, however, was tinged with sadness, not for personal reasons – indeed, I admired your ability to spiritualize even very earthly events – but for reasons that were almost official. Unfortunately, it’s true that your situation has become delicate and difficult. I would never have believed that the Poles had such a cavalier character as to surpass that of the French. Perhaps this is because they had become unaccustomed to governing. They appear excessively reverential yet particularly distrustful of the Holy See, which has done so much for them. I therefore understand your current sorrow, but I believe that time will dissipate the clouds, because Deus et dies [God and time] are the best comforts. In any case, even if some people show that they no longer appreciate you, you can count on Our esteem and benevolence. May the Lord bless you all.

Yours most affectionately

Benedictus PP. XV

From the Vatican, 6 January 1921

 

The attacks did not end there. When Gasparri’s responsibility became known, the Government asked the Catholic Episcopate to intervene. Archbishop Teodorowicz and Prince-Bishop Sapieha bitterly attacked Gasparri’s handling of the incident. Teodorowicz also attacked Ratti in the Polish Senate. A wave of anti-Vatican sentiment reached its apex, even in the Catholic press.  

Despite the many voices of support, Achille Ratti’s position had become irreparably compromised. As the Polish historian, Monsignor Walerian Meysztowicz, commented: “In the summer of 1921, the great popularity that Archbishop Ratti had gained in Poland, less than a year before, was no more.”  He had become a persona non grata in the eyes of Church and State, because they saw him as having failed to take the side of the nation which had accepted him as one of their own. And the future Cardinal Hlond wrote: "Notwithstanding the benevolent and most courteous appearances, Monsignor Ratti has left, neither rehabilitated in public opinion nor in the judgment of the very episcopate which owes to him its own reconstruction."

In spite of his loss of popularity in Poland, Achille Ratti’s firmess and fidelity had brought him a great deal merit in the eyes of the Pope, who intended to save him by promoting him, or promoveatur ut admoveatur as is said in Vatican circles.  On 18 April 1921, the Nuncio received a telegram from the Cardinal Secretary of State announcing that Pope Benedict was appointing him Archbishop of Milan. On 17 May, another telegram informed him that the Pope intended to elevate him to the cardinalate in June. His departure on 4 June was accorded the customary formalities but with a lack of warmth or special gratitude. Noticeable was the fact that the government had not decorated him with Poland’s highest honour, the Order of the White Eagle.

A strange corollary to this episode occurred eight months later, on the eve of the conclave that followed the death of Benedict XV in January 1922. After Ratti’s name appeared among possible candidates, the Polish Government hastily conferred the White Eagle upon him, presenting him the insignia the day before he entered the conclave. Elected as Pope Pius XI on 6 February 1922, he never forgot the lessons he learned while serving as the nuncio in Warsaw, especially the danger to Church interests posed by nationalist chauvinism. 

Throughout the next 17 years, he waged a battle of wills with the statesmen and churchmen alike, in an attempt to counter the chauvinistic inclinations in Polish society. Piłsudski, who became dictator in 1926, constantly complained about the disloyalty of the Catholic episcopacy. Cardinal Hlond, the Primate of Poland's analysis of the ideological conflicts between Church and state, contained in a secret report to the Vatican in 1932, makes very interesting reading. 

The relations between Poland and the Holy See deteriorated after the strongman’s death in 1935. Emblematic of this was the fact that the position of Polish Ambassador to the Holy See was left vacant during the last fourteen months of Pius XI’s pontificate. The government sent lengthy memoranda to the Vatican denouncing the Catholic clergy of both Latin and Greek Rites and began expelling foreign-born priests and religious. The unenviable situation ended only with the outbreak of the Second World War and the demise of the Second Republic, in September 1939. 

Only one other Pope was destined to receive the White Eagle. John Paul II (Karol Wojtyła) became the first recipient of the Order after it was reestablished in 1993 by the post-communist Third Republic.

Father Josaphat Jean Conference videos

Links to videos of presentations from the conference (Ukrainian):

«Ви цілковито не змінилися»: відносини між о. Йосафатом Жаном та нунцієм Акілле Ратті – папою Пієм ХІ.

“You have not changed at all” : the Relatioship of Father Josaphat Jean with Nuncio Achille Ratti – Pope Pius XI.

«Метрополія всесвіту»: отець Жан як декан УГКЦ у Великій Британії.

“Metropolis of the Universe” : Father Jean as Dean of UGCC in Great Britain.

Videos of the entire conference

Photos from the life of Father Jean

On the 80th Anniversary of the Election of Pius XII

In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI opened the files of the Pontificate of Pius XI (1922–1939). Documents of the archives of the Apostolic See can be consulted up to 11 February 1939, with some exceptions. One such exception are the fascicles concerning the death of Pius XI and the election of Pius XII in the Archive of the Nunciature of Warsaw, in the Vatican Secret Archives. They contain updates from the Roman Curia to the Warsaw Nunciature and official messages of congratulation. Local church archives are invariably open beyond February 1939, and I have translated a message from the Oriental Congregation addressed to Bishop Ladyka, which was sent to all Eastern Catholic superiors. Historians eagerly await the opening of at least a portion of the Apostolic See's archives from of Pius XII's pontificate. Perhaps this eightieth anniversary will be the harbinger of that happy event. 

Update: On 4 March 2019, Pope Francis announced that he has consented to the opening of the fonds of the pontificate of Pius XII (1939–1958), on 2 March 2020.

From the Archive of the Nunciature of Warsaw:

Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini to Archbishop Filippo Cortesi, Nuncio

2/III 1939

Vatican City

[I have the] pleasure to announce [that] Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli [has been] elected Supreme Pontiff Pius XII [,] alleluja. Deign [to] make [the] announcement [to the Polish] Government.

Cardinal Eugène Tisserant to Archbishop Filippo Cortesi

Vatican City, 2 March 1939

Your Excellency will not have failed to notice the delicate allusion that the new Pontiff addressed, in His first message, not only to the Bishops, the Clergy and to all the children of the Catholic Church spread everywhere across the world, – especially those who are suffering in poverty and pain – but “also to those who dwell outside the bounds of the Catholic Church.” And undoubtedly among the first of these, the heart of the Supreme Pontiff included the separated brethren to which, moreover, the August hope that Pius XII made a point of expressing is addressed: that “they would willingly accept divine assistance from Us, at this most solemn hour which We have implored in prayer from Almighty God.”

From the Archive of the Archeparchy of Winnipeg:

Cardinal Eugène Tisserant to each Eastern Catholic hierarch

Vatican City, 2 March 1939

            Eastern Christianity has very particular reasons to share the joy of the Catholic world at the election of the Most Eminent Lord Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli as Supreme Pontiff with the name of Pius XII.

            He is not new to eastern religious questions as, in His multiple offices, He often dealt with them with vigilant attention and always with desirous hope of a priest and apostle. Now Pius XII assumes the Prefecture of the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Church after already having offered, for many years, the wisdom of his counsel for its better administration, while fervidly and prudently collaborating with the codification of Eastern canon law.

            And if His office of Supreme Pontiff – which He seems to indicate in the very choice of name – will be inspired by the magnanimous paths traced by the genius and piety of Pius XI, then the East is certain to have, in Pius XII, a Shepherd like the Former, lovingly solicitous of its every need and hope. And if, from the motto borne on his coat of arms “Opus iustitiae pax,” it is reasonable to envision a program, then it can be said that, by Pius XII, the East will continue to be governed with that goodness and justice which are the only sources of peace.

            And wherefore, Most Reverend Excellency, may Your joy be great and that of all the clergy and people which constitutes your crown, and may their feelings of filial devotion and generous confidence reach the Most High, Who again has given the Church its Visible Head. A new era of greatness and glory is announced for Catholicism, and the Christian East shall have the richest part in this general rejoicing.

            United to Your Excellency and to His entire diocese in rendering praise and thanksgiving to the Lord, I again unite myself to Your prayer and to those of Your faithful, that the sweetest Mother of God will protect, comfort, and enlighten, the Holy Father Pius XII in the Pontificate which begins today. 

From the Archive of the Nunciature of Warsaw:

Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky to Archbishop Filippo Cortesi

In Pace.                       Léopol, 9 March 1939.

            I beg Your Excellency to deign to receive, in the name of His Holiness the Pope, the homage of obedience, of fidelity and of piety, which I present to Him on the day of His Holiness’s coronation in the name of my clergy, my faithful, and my own mediocrity.

            The magnificent conclave of 2 March was such a striking manifestation of the unity of the Church, that we felt a very great joy. Permit, Excellency, that I congratulate you – who takes the place of the Holy Father. This conclave, no less than the August Person of Pius XII, increases our supernatural hope that, under the reign of this pontiff, the poor eastern nations separated from the Church by the Eastern schism, will return, little by little, to the unity of the Catholic Church, or move toward this unity by evermore understanding that it is the word of the Almighty. 

The Warsaw Nunciature and the Lateran Pacts

The following telegram was sent by Cardinal Pietro Gasparri to the apostolic nuncio in Warsaw, Archbishop Francesco Marmaggi:

rome, 6 february 1929, 8:30 pm

n^o222- tomorrow thursday [you] will communicate [to the] diplomatic corps the following:

two years ago [the] italian governent confidentially expressed [a desire to] settle [the] roman question.

[the] holy father  asked all [the] cardinals who said [he] should not refuse such desire in comformity [with the] noted response [of] leo xiii.

private conferences [took place] for express conditions [of] his holiness [which] led [to the] stipulation not only [of a] treaty but also [of a] concordat to settle [the] italian religious [question].

both convenetions [are] inseperable [and their] signing [is] imminent.

[the] treaty ensures [to the] holy see essentially [the] arrangement always desired [: the] right to complete liberty [and] independence really necessary [to] govern [the] universal church.

[the] concordat sufficiently accounts [for the] religious situation [in] italy.

y.[our] i.[llustrious] l.[ordship is to] remain [in] warsaw.

Controversies over the Bishopric of Halych

It is very difficult to find an adequate explanation of the Ruthenian-Ukrainian episcopal title of Halych. I had planned to write an article on the confused identity of this bishopric on the occasion of the creation of multiple Greek-Catholic metropolitan-archeparchies in Ukraine. However, most of my time was taken up with Nykyta Budka research.  In the meantime, I came across a Vatican translation which referred to Sviatoslav Shevchuk as “Major Archbishop of Kyiv and Galicia.” Although I congratulated the service for following the Ukrainian government directive that city names be transliterated from Ukrainian and not from the commonly accepted Russian forms (Ukr. "Kyiv" as opposed to Russian "Kiev"), I pointed out that, in no way could Shevchuk be titled archbishop of “Galicia.” To my correction I received a courteous response stating that an official Ukrainian Catholic source had provided this rendering of “Верховний Архиєпископ Києво-Галицький.”

My maternal great-grandparents immigrated to Canada in 1907 from what today is western Ukraine. I remember my grandmother often reminiscing that Angliky (Anglophone Canadians) used to call the early Ukrainian immigrants “Galicians” or even “garlic Galicians.” This derogatory appellative undoubtedly referred to the fact that Anglos were unfamiliar with the pungent odor of garlic, which Ukrainian settlers generously used in their cuisine.  In late nineteenth and early twentieth-century correspondence, we often find Canadian churchmen using “Galician” to refer to Ukrainian and sometimes to Polish immigrants from a province of the Habsburg Monarchy of Austria-Hungary known officially as “Galicia.”

The English form “Galicia” derrives from “Galitia,” the Latin chancery form of the German “Galizien.”  Toward the end of the 18^th century, not wanting to unilaterally annex the entire Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Tsarist Russia was able to enlist the collusion of Prussia and Austria, each of which agreed to accept a portion of Polish territory.  The Catholic Empress-Queen Maria Theresa is recorded as having had strong scruples about stealing lands from the Polish king.  Regarding such protests, her archrival and fellow partitioner, Fredrick the Great of Prussia, mockingly observed, “The more she weeps the more she takes.”

Outright annexation has always been frowned upon.  Today invaders might use a political paradigm such as “liberation” or “spreading democracy,” but in the eighteenth century a dynastic solution was in order.  The principalities, duchies and counties of a given territory were transferred from the feudal lordship of one sovereign to another. Russia, which got the bulk of Poland-Lithuania, dethroned the king of Poland altogether and the Tsarina assumed the crown of Poland for herself and her successors.  Prussia got a few duchies in the west but under what guise could the heterogeneous portion be included into Austrian lands?  Imperial chancellor, Prince Kaunitz, was charged with finding a solution. The Habsburgs had been hereditary kings of Hungary since 1527 and Kaunitz researched the historical claims of that particular crown.

In enlisting the expertise of Greek-Catholic priest-historian Mykhaylo Harasevych, Kaunitz reasoned that the territories partitioned were more-or-less those of the ancient Rus (Ruthenian) principalities Halych and Volodymyr. As the Mongols extended their control of Kyivan-Rus lands, Halych passed under Hungarian suzerainty from 1214–1221 and was conquered by King Casmir the Great in 1349.  Under Poland the area was known as the wojewódstwo ruskie (Ruthenian Palatinate or Duchy). But given fact that Pope Innocent IV had sent a royal crown to Prince Danylo of Halych in 1253, it was decided that the territory could be appropriately denoted Königreiche Galizien und Lodomerien (Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria). And the new hereditary king was Maria Theresa’s son and co-ruler Josef II, who was sent to three times in the 1780s to visit and inspect the new province, whose capital Lemberg (Lviv) had been named after Danylo’s son.

Austria-Hungary

Governed by Austria until the end of the First World War, Galicia contained a multi-ethnic population of Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, Germans and Armenians.  The western half (eventually including Krakow) was mainly Polish, while the eastern part was predominantly Ukrainian in the countryside.  The cities were dominated by the Polish elites. From November 1918 to July 1919 Ukrainians fought to establish a western Ukrainian state in Eastern Galicia but by July 1919 the stronger Polish forces had defeated them and incorporated the territory (albeit provisorialy until 1923) into the Second Polish Republic, which renamed it Małopolska Wschodnia (Eastern Little Poland).  In 1939 the occupying Soviets staged a plebiscite to join the Ukrainian SSR, a move made permanent in 1945.

Arms of Galicia and Lodomeria

The term “Galicia” is widely known in historical publications but relatively unknown among Ukrainians today. When referring to the territory and even to the Austrian province, they generally used the Ukrainian rendering Halychyna.  Having been brought up on John-Paul Himka’s articles on the Ukrainians in Austrian Galicia, I was surprised and amused when one Greek-Catholic priest took exception to my use of the term, claiming that, even in English, the territory should be called Halychyna because the name Galicia applies to a province of Spain.

Confusion between the terms Galicia and Halych continued long after Austrian Galicia had ceased to exist politically.  Ukrainians who had been forcefully incorporated into the Polish State after 1920 were reluctant to use the term “Little Poland” to refer to the provinces of Lviv, Stanyslaviv, and Ternopil, and so they continued to refer to the territory as Halychyna. Along side this appellative, the Halytska mytropolia (Metropolitan See of Halych) continued to exist and the Halytskyi mytropolyt was looked upon not merely as a religious leader but also as a national leader (ethnarch) by the stateless Ukrainians.

In view of Ukrainian resistance, the Polish Government sought to limit the influence of the Greek-Catholic Church, in particular the church's primate, Halytsky Mytropolyt Andrey Sheptytsky.  In 1921 the government sacked its first envoy to the Holy See and appointed Count Wladysław Skrzyński, Sheptytsky’s own cousin, who was tasked with taking a harder line against Ukrainian interests in the Vatican. After failing to achieve Sheptytsky's removal, Skrzyński engineered a compromise which allowed the metropolitan to return to Lviv, and was rewarded with by being named ambassador proper to the Holy See when the Polish legation was raised to the rank of a full embassy in 1925.

Poland had achieved independence and had consolidated is territory largely due to the efforts of Marshall Józef Piłsudski, who had taken power by a military coup in November 1918.  From then until the first presidential elections of 1922, Piłsudski acted as interim head of state, after which he retired from the political scene.  However, after four years of weak government, parliamentary factionalism, and economic woe, in May 1926 Piłsudski emerged from retirement and staged a second coup, establishing an authoritarian, semi-parliamentary regime over which he was de facto dictator. This hybrid political experiment proved to be a failure and in June 1930 the opposition parties called for the abolition of the dictatorship.  Piłsudski retaliated by disbanding parliament, arresting, imprisoning, and torturing the opposition, which included Ukrainian parliamentarians. 

After dealing with his Polish opponents, Piłsudski gave orders to crush Ukrainian opposition.  In response to raids on Polish landowners by the OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists). Piłsudski ordered a massive counterattack in the form of a bloody “Pacification” campaign.  Police detachments were raided hundreds of Ukrainian villages and demolished buildings. The nationally conscious Greek-Catholic clergy were not spared in and even Sheptytsky’s auxiliary, Bishop Ivan Buchko, was mistreated and prevented from carrying out pastoral visitations.  Despite protests from around the world including censure from the British and Canadian Parliaments, the infamous “Pacification” lasted into 1931, with the regime assigning collective responsibility to the entire Ukrainian people for OUN attacks.  

In 1930 Sheptytsky traveled to Warsaw in an attempt to personally meet with Marshall Piłsudski. The metropolitan sought to convince the dictator that harsh measures against the Ukrainians would only result in gains for both the OUN and communist radicals.  Unfortunately the request for an audience was refused and the regime made several provocative gestures against the Ukrainian primate, convinced that he was behind Ukrainian political opposition. The first incident occured when police raided the metropolitan’s orphanage on the very evening when he received the Polish Primate, Cardinal Hlond. A pastoral letter issued by Sheptytsky and his fellow bishops was later confiscated, in contravention of the Concordat’s stipulations.

The same pastoral letter gave rise to Polish complaints to the Vatican regarding Sheptytsky’s title. On 28 May 1931, Ambassador Skrzyński dispatched a note to Cardinal Pacelli, Secretary of State to Pius XI, complaining that Sheptytsky was using the title “Metropolita Halicki.” Skrzyński noted that, according to Article IX B of the Concordat, he was listed only as “Archbishop of the Greek-Catholic Rite and of the Archdiocese of Lwów,” and that use of the other was intended for “purely political ends.”

Cardinal Pacelli forwarded the complaint to the competent Vatican department, the Congregation for the Eastern Church, but the department’s staff were unable to find legal arguments for the title’s use in their records (This Oriental Congregation was a relitively new department and so it’s archival materials did not extend further back than 1862).  On 16 June, the Congregation’s head, Cardinal Luigi Sincero, enlisted two of his expert advisors (consulters), Father Cyrille Korolevskij and Monsignor Enrico Benedetti. The following is a translation of Korolevskij’s report, explaining the origins and use of the title of Halych:

The Ruthenian Hierarchy of the so-called Little Poland traces its origins from the Kievan Metropolia of the patriarchate of Constantinople. This was the only metropolia to which they belonged since the conversion of  the Ruthenians to Christianity (from the XII–XIII centuries divided into two branches, Great Russians and Little Russians known today as Ukrainians).

The first document in which we can obtain a reliable list of the suffragan sees of Kiev is the Record of Manuel I Comnenus, published a little after 1170, in which there are eleven bishoprics, among which is that of Halych.

Halych was raised to metropolitan rank perhaps already in 1303 and for sure by 1345, at the request of the local princes, when the Kievan metropolitan, after the conquest and burning of Kiev by Mongol invaders (Tatars) in 1299, went to live in Vladimir on the Klazma and later to Moscow. At the request of the Metropolitan of Kiev Teognost and the Grand Prince of Moscow Simeon Ioanovych Gordij, this erection was annulled by the Byzantine Emperor John VI Paleologus and this annulment was confirmed by Patriarch Isidore I in September 1347.

After the Lithuanians had conquered Kiev and Podolia, in the first half of the 14^th century, the Lithuanian King Olgherd obtained in 1355 from Patriarch Philoteus I Koskinos a special metropolitan see for all the Lithuanian domains. This metropolia lasted until 1419, the year during which the eparchies that made up returned under the Metropolitan of Kiev, still resident in Moscow.  Halych and Leopolis belonged to this metropolia or ceased to belong to according to political viscidities.

Thus, when the Polish King Casmir III the Great had conquered Galicia from the Mongol-Tatars in 1362, he again obtained from the same Patriarch Philoteus in 1371 that Antonii, the bishop of Halych, became a metropolitan and had for suffragans all the Ruthenians bishops of Casmir’s domains.  In case the patriarch refused, the king threatened to re-baptize all the Ruthenians as Latins.  Halych received as its suffragan sees Kholm, Turov, Peremysl and Vladimir Volynsk. No mention was made of Leopolis because that bishopric did not exist until 1540, when it was established by the Kievan Metropolitan Makarii II.

After the death of Antonii in 1380, the metropolia of Halych had no bishop and was administered by one of the suffragan bishops with the title of patriarchal exarch, either from the Greek Archbishop of Bethlehem or by the Metropolitan of Kiev by means of a vicar.  This situation lasted until 1412, after which, for a second time, the metropolia of Halych ceased to exist.  Halych did not even continue as a bishopric and, in the meantime, in 1595 the second and definitive union with Rome occurred (The first lasted from  about 1439 to 1517 but has no bearing here.)

In 1626, the Catholic metropolitan of Kiev, Yosyf Veliamin Rutsky, wanted to obtain a coadjutor with the right of succession, chose the priest-monk Rafail Korsak and obtained for the latter the royal nomination to the bishopric of Halych.  He believed that he could do this, as for all of his other suffragans, without the intervention of Rome, in virtue of Clement VIII’s bull Decet Romanum Pontificem of 23 February 1596, which confirmed the rights and privileges of the Metropolitan of Kiev.  Being that this pertained to a coadjutor and future successor, The Sacred Congregation De Propaganda Fide did not consider it necessary to obtain a dispensation from of the Holy See.  In fact, confirmation of the nomination occurred [without an special decree] in the papal Consistory of 31 July 1628.

In 1631, since Rutsky wanted the See of Halych to remain joined to the Metropolia of Kiev in the person of Korsak after he had suceeeded as metropolitan, until the latter chose for himself a coadjutor upon whom he would confer the same title of Halych.  It was then judged necessary a new proposition in Consistory and a the dispatch of a new papal bull.  In the following year 1632, Korsak also became Bishop of Pinsk and soon listed in documents only as Bishop of Pinsk.  Metropolitan Rutsky died on 5 February 1637 and Korsak succeeded him, but the latter himself died suddenly in Rome in 1640 without having chosen a coadjutor.  As far as I know, the Church (See) of Halych was no longer mentioned but the fact remained that, from 1631, the episcopal see of Halych was united to the metropolitan see of Kiev.

The entire story had been completely forgotten and the documents buried in archival dust when, from 1774, discussions began for establishing a metropolia separate from Kiev for the Ruthenian eparchies that had passed under Austrian rule after the partition of Poland. It was the Ruthenian bishops of Austria that petitioned Pius VII to re-establish the ancient metropolitan see of Halych.  In order to do so, they needed to prove the ancient existence of that metropolia, and it was not deemed to be a good idea to base it on the decrees of non-Catholic patriarchs.  Thus they invoked the bull of [the anti-pope] John XXIII dated the V before the calends of September in the third year of his reign (= 28 August 1412), by which “antequam sedem Haliciensem transferret in metropolitanam sub invocatione Beatae Mariae Viriginis, tunc fuerat erecta (= Leopoliensis cathedralis ecclesia) ac deinceps ad simplicis episcopalis Ecclesiae statum redacta.” 

Yet the bull of John XXIII was not issued for the Ruthenian see but for the Latin diocese. How such a mistake could be made, has to be attributed to either a complete ignorance of history, easily explained in this period, or in the usual craftiness of the Austrian Imperial Chancellery and of the excessively-praised Ruthenian Canon Mykhaylo Harasevych.  The fact is that, despite an illusion to the union of the See of Halych to that of Kiev, something that only happened in the case of the Ruthenian see (the Latin diocese of Kiev has always been a simple bishopric and never an archbishopric or metropolitan see), the entire bull of Pius VII, In universalis Ecclesiae regimine of 22 March 1807 which reestablishes the Ruthenian Metropolia of Halych, is based on the bull of John XXIII issued for the Latin dioceses.

Whatever the case may be, it is necessary here to apply to law the theological principle that, even a dogmatic definition can be historically or theologically inexact, but that the definition itself is still true. In 1807 Pius VII established a Ruthenian metropoitanate of Halych and, at the same time, applied to the Ruthenian see of Lviv an archiepiscopal title which was considered very old but which, in reality, had never existed as such, only as a Latin archdiocese.

Thus it can be explained why today, Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky may sign “Metropolitan of Halych, Archbishop Lviv.” I believe that, until now, no one has ever noticed the confusion: the editors of the introduction of the Schematism of the Ruthenian Archparchy of Lviv, as can be seen in add the editors anterior to the [First World] War, base themselves on the bull, In universalis Ecclesiae, on an event which took place in 1412 but which did not pertain to the Ruthenians.

He also signs “Bishop of Kamenets-Podolsk”.  It’s not completely certain that a Ruthenian bishopric existed in the Middle Ages in Kamenets, a city founded in the 13^th century, a commercial centre and thus soon populated by all sorts of people: Russians, Ruthenians, Poles, Armenians, Jews, Tatars.  Only one of the old Russian chronicles speaks of a Bishop of Kamenets, whom it does not name.  The non-Catholic Orthodox eparchy was not established before 1798.  I saw a quantity of Ruthenian documents dated before 1808: but I don’t even remember seeing in the any sort of title of Kamenets used by a Ruthenian bishop of Lviv. And Michael Harasevych, provost of the Ruthenian Chapter of Lviv and great collector of Ruthenian documents, who put this title back into use, which is demonstrated in the speeches given on the occasion of the first Metropolitan of Halych after the restoration by  Pius VII, Antonii Anhelovych.  Since that time, all the metropolitans have also added to their titles that of Kamenets.

Even the listing of the titles of this metropolitante varied.  In a pastoral letter of 1840, Mykhaylo Levytsky, later cardinal, took the titles of  Metropolita Ruthenorum unitorum Haliciensis, Archiepiscopus Leopoliensis Episcopus Camenecensis.  Ad in another pastoral of 1841 (the old-slavonic version) which I have before me, used the version: Archbishop and Metropolitan of Lvov and of Halych of the Ruthenians United to the Church of Rome.” In 1855 he signed the pastoral letter promulgating the bull Ineffabilis in this way: Metropolita Haliciensis, Archiepiscopus Leopoliensis, Episcopus Kamenecensis.  And thenceforth all his successors have done so, including Metropolitan Sheptytsky.

This is not the first time that Metropolitan Sheptytsky has used the sole title of Metropolitan of Halych.  He does it when he writes pastoral letters of a general theme addressed either to the entire ecclesiastical province or to the Ruthenians of Canada (it is known that before the nomination of the Ruthenian Bishop of Canada, he was very concerned to preserve the faith of the Ruthenian emigrants, and who could blame him?).  I have a few examples, one from 1902, the first of its kind translated into Polish.

II.

Now I move to the question inquiry.  After the Concordat of 1925... It is evident to whomever objectively reads point B of Article IX of the said Concordat that this point is not about titles but rather represents a simple list of dioceses (or eparchies) of the three rites in Poland according to French terminology which is the language of the Concordat.  If it were not thus, it would be necessary also to prohibit the Ruthenian Bishop of  Przemysl from entitling himself, as he continues to do, “Bishop of Przemysl, Sanok, and Sambor,”  because that is more-or-less the ancient usage, as the last two titles do not appear in the Concordat.  Throughout the world, bishops use titles more or less long, which recall suppressed sees or historical memories, etc.  Such titles are never listed in concordats because those deal with geographical divisions, not titles.

Does the qualification “ “Metropolitan of Halych” have a political meaning?  I really don’t think so because it did not have any such meaning in 1902 nor in the years following.  Therefore I believe that this [complaint] is simply a ruse to vex Sheptytsky. The Metropolitan’s situation is very sad indeed!...

At present, the Ruthenian Ecclesiastical Province of Halych is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff: not as its ordinary metropolitan (because it has never been part of the patriarchate of Rome) but rather that of Constantinople; nor as an autocephalous metropolitan, because it has suffragan sees and because it has never been autocephalous.  It is an authentic autonomous archbishopric with patriarchal jurisdiction.  Although, at present, it has only a single ecclesiastical province, according to the constitution of the Eastern Church, one day it could also have others subject to it.

Kyr Sheptytsky is both archbishop and metropolitan together: as archbishop he presides over an autonomous Church, distinct from the other Churches of the Byzantine Rite.  In addition, he also has a suffragan ecclesiastical province of Halych with two bishoprics of Przemysl and Stanislaviv, just as the Archbishop of Ocrida had... as the Archbishop of Cyprus and other ancient bishoprics of  Nova Justiniana which have vanished.

Therefore, the proper titular protocol for Sheptytsky, even when he writes to the entire ecclesiastical province, should be “Archbishop of Lviv, Metropolitan of Halych.” There is no need to mention the bishopric of Kamenets because, in eastern terminology, when a bishopric is suppressed it is not longer mentioned.  But all this was unknown to Canon Mykhaylo Harasevych as it continues to be to the Ruthenians today.

Андрей шептицький Митрополит Галицький

[Korolevskij missed another title used by at least one Halych Metropolitan.  In 1856, Metropolitan Levytsky wrote a letter announcing his elevation to the cardinalte which began thus:

Michael Lewicki, Dei et Apostolicae Sedis Gratia Sacrae Romanae Ecclesiae Presbyter Cardinalis, Metropolita Haliciensis, Archiepiscopus Leopoliensis, Episcopus Kamenecensis, Sacrae Caesareo-Regiae et Apostolicae Majestatis actualis intimus Consiliarius, insignis Ordinis Leopoldi Magnae Crucis Eques, Rengorum Galiciae et Lodomiriae Primas, Sacrae Theologiae Doctor etc. Venerablili Clero saeculari et regulari ac fideli populo Hierarchiae Metropolitanae ritus gr. cath. Haliciensis et Archipraesuleam Benedictionem! (Harasevych, Annales, p. 1181)  Perhaps Harasevych also invented the title "primate of the Kingdoms of Galicia and Lodomeria,"since it is not found in the official church or state documents pertaining to Levytsky's elevation.

In addition, Korolevskij's disdain for title of Kamianets-Podilsk is somewhat ironic since, when he was first accepted under the metropolitan’s canonical jurisdiction, Sheptytsky ascribed him under the title of the Eparchy of Kamianets, which Metropolitan Andrey had been using as a legal precedent to engage in missionary actibvity in the Tsarist Empire. In any case, it had been one of the dorment eparchies listed in the extraordinary secret faculties granted Sheptytsky by Pius X in 1907.]

           Monsignor Benedetti added the following interesting historical data:

After the Principality of Halych was conquered by the Poles, all the Greek bishops were soon expelled and their cathedrals were occupied by Latin bishops. (Gregorio XI Id. Febr. 1375) Later, considering that Halych was remote and undefended, the metropolitan see was transferred to Lviv (John XXIII, 28 August 1412). The Orthodox Ruthenians lost their own bishops and passed under the Latin Metropolitan of Halych and Lviv, who exercised his jurisdiction via a vicar protopresbyter nominated for him by the [Orthodox] Metropolitan of Kiev who had added to his own title that of Metropolitan of Halych.

But taking into account the difficulties which the Orthodox priests encountered in making the long journey to Kiev to be ordained, Zygmunt I, King of Poland, in 1539 reestablished a Greek bishopric in Lviv “ut a Metropolitano suo Kioviensi ad dignitatem Vladicatus insignitus, possit... omnia quae ad ritum fidei eorum pertinere videbuntur administrare... nei distretti Haliciensi Leopoliensi, Camenecensi, Snyatinensi, Trembowliensi...” Certainly the erection of this bishopric cannot be considered to have been canonical but its illegitimacy does not change the fact of its existance. Thus the current Ruthenian bishopric of Lviv, Halych and Kamianets originated with Zygmunt I.

From the documents that we have until the beginning of the XIX century, the bishops of Lviv were simply entitled “Bishop of Lviv, Halych and Kamianets Podilsk.”  At the Synod of Zamost (1720) Atanasii Sheptytsky signed the acts with the formula “Athanasius Szeptycki Episcopus Leopoliensis, Haliciensis et Camenariensis Podoliae.”  It is known that Bishop Gedeon Balaban of Lviv and the bishop of Peremysl did not sign the act of union.

On 6 August 1931 the Nuncio to Poland, Francesco Marmaggi, added his opinion that the title was legitimate, despite any confusion regarding its origins, and that the concordat was not competent to alter such titles.  He noted, in fact, that the title “Primate of Poland” is not listed in the concordat, despite its use by the Archbishop of Gniezno and Poznan.

In Cardinal Sincero’s audience with Pius XI of 25 August, based on the Congregation’s research, the Pope decided to instruct Sheptytsky, so as to avoid conflicts with the Polish government, never to use the title “Metropolitan of Halych” on its own but after “Archbishop of Lviv.”

As a piece of historical trivia and perhaps an impetus for further research, it may be noted that, in 1774 Austrian officials did not chose the Ruthenian form “Halych” for the name of their new kingdom, but "Galicia," certainly closer to Polish usage but perhaps also the form borne by Hungarian monarchs. On the other hand, inn 1807 the papal chancery used the Ruthenian form “Haliciensis” in transferring and re-creating the metropolitan see. The different forms indicate that, despite their common origins, church and statesmen intended Halych and Halychyna to be two very different things.  This being said, both laymen and clerics sometimes crossed the lines between politics and religion, making 'Halych' and 'Galich' synonymous.

In his efforts to establish the Ukrainian patriarchate, Sheptytsky’s successor, Cardinal Yosyf Slipyj (1892–1984, metropolitan from 1944) had his seals inscribed “Patriarch of Kyiv-Halych and Bishop of Kamianets Podilsk.” When the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church first emerged from the underground, some tension arose between the Archeparchy of Lviv, which was united to the Halych metropolia, and the Eparchy of Ivano-Frankivsk, in which territory the insignificant city of Halych was located.  With the return of the primatial see to Kyiv in 2004,  the title of Halych was re-united with that of Kyiv. In turn, in 2011, the bishoprics of Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk, among others, were raised to metropolitan sees.