Monday, 25 August 2014

Budka Biography Published

God's Martyr, History's Witness: 
Blessed Nykyta Budka 
the First Ukrainian Greek-Catholic 
Bishop of Canada 

has been published by the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Edmonton 
and the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky
Institute of Eastern Christian Studies.

An abridged table of contents of the 650 page book may be found here.

A private launch for contributors and benefactors took place on 22 August (photo)

The first public launch will take pace at Verkhovyna,
Saint Josaphat Cathedral Hall, Edmonton
Friday, 24 October 2014, at 7:00 in the evening. 

For the time being, the book is available only through
the Edmonton Eparchial Chancery
 at a cost of $25
Later, it will be available for purchase in other eparchies.

Friday, 22 August 2014

Internment of Ukrainians in Canada

With Dr. Karen Lemiski,
curator of the Basilian Fathers Museum, Mundare, Alberta
Vatican Radio’s Christopher Wells spoke with Fr Athanasius McVay, a Ukrainian Greek Catholic priest from Canada, and an expert in early 20th-century ecclesiastical history. Fr McVay says that, in addition to the positive commemorations of the men and women who sacrificed themselves during the war, it is important also to remember the victims of the war, at home and abroad. “Alongside the brave soldiers who gave their lives, there were our own Canadian citizens and immigrants… who were deprived of their civil rights, and many were interned in internment camps during the war.”
During the war, he says, it was “not so much the government, but the general population, [that] became very suspicious and fearful.” Although the government needed to take steps to ensure there was no activity that could be detrimental to the war effort or the morale at home, Fr McVay says, “I think it’s generally recognized today that they exceeded their mandate, because the internment was really not necessary, and it was really not caused by anything these people had done.”
Fr McVay says: “These commemorations should be about remembering. History is often called the memory of mankind, and I think that we owe it to history to remember these events and to make some symbolic redress – but to move forward, and learn from our mistakes, and to make a better value world, to promote our Catholic values.”

Christopher Wells interviews Father Athanasius McVay on Internment of Ukrainian-Canadians

Monday, 4 August 2014

Ukrainian Canadians: For King and Canada

To the Rev. Clergy and all the faithful Ruthenians:
         Not long ago the world was stirred by the news that Austria is fighting with Servia. All other powers decided to wait and mainly England with all her might and efforts tried to make the war local and maintain peace.
        At the time when no state was endangered by war except Austria and Servia, when England did not call her citizens to defend their homes, then, we issued a circular in which we stated that Austria, through the Austro-Hungarian Consulate challenges her loyal subjects to stand under the Austrian flag. We also stated that the Ruthenians who arrived here only for a short period ought to bey the call of Austria and go to defend their homes and families.
... Our new home of Canada challenges her faithful subjects to gather under the British Standard and be ready to give their lives and properties for the British cause. Today all the nationalities living under the British flag send their sons to defend that flag.
           In this event when to us as loyal citizens comes England with appeal to have us gathered under her flag, when Britain needs our aid, we, today as faithful citizens of the part of the British Empire the Canadian Ruthenians have before us a great and solemn duty to flock under the flag of  our new land and under this standard give our lives and blood.
           Ruthenians,– Canadian citizens: It is our great duty to defend Canada, for it is the land that not only received us and gave us shelter under the Constitution of the Great Empire, but more than that, it gave us liberty in developing ourselves spiritually.
       Once more Ruthenians; it is our holy duty to be in readiness and offer everything for Canada.
      It isn our home to which we swore allegiance, for which we declared to give lives and all in its defence when necessity demands.
       It is our dear Motherland whereon our families, relatives, children, property, our hearts and future depend.
      Therefore, in these most critical times as now, we must remember that as true Sons of Canada bound y the Oath of Allegiance to our King, we must flock to the British Standard.
        Put aside all party and radical feelings, aside all indifference.
      We conscientiously and with deep feelings of loyalty and duty want and will help our new country when endangered by enemies.
         Ruthenians, Canadian Citizens: You that have already sown allegiance to be loyal to your King George 5th, and you that intend to do so, remember that the present moment demands you. For any unloyal word or action here as in any other country in time of war death is punishment for treason.
          Loyalty binds you to deeds and sacrifice and when the Empire calls for this everyone must be ready even to put up his life.
          If it were necessary and possible to organize a regiment of the Canadian Ruthenian Citizens, it would be obvious sign that the Ruthenians in Canada are true subjects and are ready to sacrifice everything for their new home.
          Secondly we declare that we must fulfil our duties not only from the standpoint of the law but with deep feelings of duty.
          Only God knows how this war the greatest in history is going to end.
          Pray God that He may with His almighty power shorten this terrific storm and cause its end and that our new home may not suffer loss.
        In view of the fact when our former letter was issued then, the war was exclusively between Austria and Servia, and only few believed that it will spread over other Kingdoms; viewing the fact that there existed a peace in England and that England did not call her subjects to action, we declare emphatically that our letter of the 27th of July, in view of the new altered political situation, is irrelevant and must not be read in public and churches.
        Instead we urge the clergy t read the present letter during the sermons in their parishes and inform accordingly the Ruthenians of their solemn duty to the Great British Empire.

— + Nicetas Budka, 6 August 1914
(English translation of the Bishop's Chancery, August 1914)
published in Kanadyiskyi Rusyn, 8 August 1914

Friday, 1 August 2014

Generation Mobilization - The Guns of August 1914

“Call to Austrians in Winnipeg,” Manitoba Free Press, 31 July 1914
The official proclamation of the partial mobilization order issued by the Government of Austria-Hungary was published in Winnipeg yesterday in “The Ukrainiann Voice” and other papers of the nationalities concerned.  German is the official language of Austria, but about ten languages are spoken by the people within the boundaries of the Empire.  Consequently, the proclamation of the partial mobilization appears in the two German papers of Wpg., in the seven Ruthenian and in the one Hungarian paper of the west.
            The men concerned in the mobilization are being informed by announcement cards, in addition to the mobilization orders.  The order promises that expenses of travelling will be paid, and this will make considerable difference in the returning, as it is considered that many of the men, in these hard times, are too poor to bear their own expenses.
            When the expenses are to be paid, and even advanced to those unable to meet them at the moment, it is expected that a large number of the men will respond to the call to arms.
            The Austrian proclamation issued from the local consulate is an interesting document, and as published in the papers yesterday, reads as follows: [...]
            It is very difficult to obtain any information regarding the spirit of Servians in Western Canada and whether orders of mobilization have been issued to them.  There are not many Serbs in Winnipeg, but Moose Jaw and Regina number quite a few among their cosmopolitan population.

Deserters Pardoned
By Austrian Emperor on condition they offer for service now
(Toronto July 30/14). Local Austrian subjects of various races have been officially advised that they are wanted only if they receive individual notice to that effect. Those who do not receive such notice will remain where they are.
            It is stated with absolute authority that a manifesto has been issued by the Austrian Government granting official pardon “By the grace of the Emperor” to all subjects under military discipline who have previously deserted, or in any other way evaded their military duties. All to whom this applies must, in order to receive pardon, present themselves at once for military service without waiting for a summons.
            It is anticipated that when this becomes widely known there will be an exodus of some thousands from Canada.

Austrians Leaving to Fight
(Montreal, July 30) The German liner Millahad, now in port from Rotterdam and Antwerp, will carry back to Europe the first Austrians to sail from Montreal to the seat of war. When the vessel clears from thisn port Saturday morning or possibly on Sunday morning there will be at least 200 of the local Austrians on board hurrying back to Austria at the call of the Emperor. 5000 Austrians in Montreal are supposed to answer the call of the sovereign for they are in te first and second reservists.  Quite a number of the collony have become British subjects and so are exempt from military service in the conflict. Austrian labor agencies are crowded today. On the door of each one is posted in a conspicuous place the order from the local consul requiring the first reservists to leave for home at once.  They are to report to him to arrange for passage. The notices are dated the 28th inst., and stamped with the local seal.

Saturday, 26 July 2014

Partial Mobilization - 26 July 1914

Ruthenian Partial Mobilization.
           In Austria-Hungary His Imperial Majesty has proclaimed partial mobilization (___) supplement the general forces ___ on war footing).
            Those who are obligated to the call to arms as reservists are being notified of the fact by summons cards.
            Those called  will be reimbursed their travelling expenses.
            Those called, who do not have sufficient funds for the journey, have to call on the nearest Imperial and Royal representative, presenting their summons cards, and there the funds for the journey will be paid.
            All others summoned will have the funds for the journey to join the colours returned later.
            Those among the summoned whose home is on the frontiers of the Monarchy, instead of to the nearest representative of the Imperial and Royal Governemnt are to report directly to their government station at home..
           His Imperial and Royal Majesty Emperor Franz Josef І granted amnesty to those who did not report for conscription and also to those who are classified as deserters, if they immediately return home.
            Winnipeg, 26. July 1914.                   

Tuesday, 22 July 2014

Centenary of the First World War

Historians such as Margaret MacMillan, John Polland, Roberto De Matei, discuss the causes of the Great War, which began on 28 July 1914. The video, produced by Catholic News Service, features the often ignored Vatican's diplomatic efforts to mediate between the powers and to end the war.

Friday, 4 July 2014

Budka Biography Sent to Press

This morning, my biography of Blessed Nykyta Budka was submitted to the printer.
It will take about six weeks to print and then an additional few weeks to bind.  Stay tuned for updates.  Here is a history of the book's composition and an abridged table of contents.

Saturday, 28 June 2014

Bishop Budka on the Assassination at Sarajevo

... For quite a number of years the war-cloud has hung over our country which, however, did not realise it, and it was held off by the efforts of the peace-loving Emperor Franz Joseph I. Then happened an incident which would exhaust the patience of the most patient of men. On June the 28th, Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne, a man of great hopes in the present difficult moment for Austria, was assassinated in Sarajevo, together with his wife, by the bullet of a Servian student. This loss was greatly felt by the monarch and all nationalities of Austria, and especially by Ruthenians, who held great and deserving hope in him.  The enemies of Austria, and especially the enemies of the Ruthenian Ukrainians, do not conceal their satisfaction on account of this tragic loss.  The Canadian Ruthenian Ukrainians sympathise with the sorrow of our Motherland, and give proof of it by special services in the churches for those assassinated and in the prayer for the welfare of the maternal country. ... 
—(Pastoral Letter, 27 July 1914: version printed in the Northwest Review8 August 1914)

Saturday, 14 June 2014

Bishop Budka on Ukrainian Independence

"As I write this, I feel that I am in Lviv, where a war is going on after the world war. It is a war for values that in theory have already been won in the world, but in our homeland they are yet being birthed in blood and agony. Merciful God, how bitter it must be to live there—have mercy upon us and finally grant us peace! The Faith of our brothers and national freedom are constantly foremost in all our thoughts. We know little of what is happening there, but we believe that one and the other are progressing."  

— To Metropolitan Sheptytsky, November 1918, during the war for Ukrainian independence (p. 275 of the upcoming bio)

Saturday, 24 May 2014

Petro Kamenetsky: Priest, Patriot, Prisoner of War

In the Vatican Archives, Nunciature in Canada series, there is a fascile containing correspondence from the Prisoners of War Committee at the Vernon, BC internment camp to the Apostolic Delegate, dated April and May 1919. I was surpised to find that one of the documents had been notarized by Ukrainian Greek-Catholic priest, Rev. Petro Kamenetsky, “himself a prisoner of war in this camp.” Although he was not the only Ukrainian Catholic priest arrested in Canada, during the First World War, Kamenetsky apperas to have been the only one to have been interned. For this reason alone, his interesting life-story deserves to be explored during this centenary of the outbreak of the war.

Born:  26 June 1891, Vikno, Skalat (Husiatyn), Ukraine
Arrived in Canada: 28 September 1913, Halifax, NS
Ordained priest: 23 March 1914, Toronto, ON
1st pastorship: 1 April 1914, Sifton and Ethelbert, MB
Interned: August 1918, Vernon, BC
First pastor of the following churches:
- 1917, St. George's Church (Cathedral), Saskatoon, SK
- 10 October 1937, Our Lady of Perpetual Help, Toronto, ON
- 1962: Protection of BVM Parish, Toronto, ON
Appointed honourary canon: 1940
named domestic prelate (Monsignor): 1959
elevated to mitred archpriest: 1969
died: 31 January 1973, Toronto, ON

(Biography to follow)
If you have information about Petro Kamenetsky (not to be confused with his brother, Father Vasylii, OSBM) kindly message me.

Tuesday, 31 December 2013

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 18th 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.

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 1892).  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 14th 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 13th 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.
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 re-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.