4 in UGCC claim consecration as bishops from underground bishops

[ASimpleSinner]

Ukrainian Catholic Bishops Consecrated Without Mandate Or Permission In Protest

This seems kind of big. It will be interesting to watch this play out.

 

[bpbasilphx]

This sounds to me like extraordinary conditings needing extraordinary rememdies. I have been told that the late Patriarch Joseph Cardinal Slypy quietly and secretly consecrated the now Patriarch Lyobmir Husar on his own discretion, but had been authorized by Pope Paul VI to choose a candidate.

It also sounds like these 4 bishops are seeking to regularize their sttatus and be officially reconciled with the Bishop of Rome. I pray they are successful.

 

[jj2011]

It was about time that somebody (besides SSPX and its allies) took a stand about false ecumenism, Modernism, and the disastrous new orientation in our eastern churches. What I can’t understand is how these four can write with sympathy for the Charismatic movement, which is part of the problem, not the solution.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

So Schism is the answer?

It was about time that somebody (besides SSPX and its allies) took a stand about false ecumenism, Modernism, and the disastrous new orientation in our eastern churches. What I can’t understand is how these four can write with sympathy for the Charismatic movement, which is part of the problem, not the solution.

 

[Aramis]

In this case, they are weilding the law as a weapon, not in schism, per se, but against His Eminence Lubomyr.

They are subjecting themselves for evaluation and trial, hoping that their complaints will be found worthy and their acts NOT schismatic.

I suspect they have the tacit, if not overt, assistance of the FSSJ (the UGCC’s SSPX equivalent AND affiliate).

It is insteresting to note that they are mostly correct, in that illicit consecration is not a latae sentence offense in the CCEO, but, by the same token, it is still a canonical violation which then must be tried, by the relevant synod. The proper courts are those of the UGCC, but based upon their claims, they feel that that synod is corrupted, and thus only the pope is able to adjudicate fairly.

They are very clearly of the mind that the latinized forms are good, wholesome, and desired of the people, as well as liturgically and historically valid. His Emminence, in the literal spirit of V II’s ordered approach to the east, seems to disagree.

Pravoslavni православний: “True worded” is the native term which equates to the imported term Ortodoks (ортодокс from the greek orthodox)… It is in fact the appropriate term and goal of every bishop that he and his priests and people remain true-worded (православний) in the faith.

I look forward to seeing how this plays out.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Pravoslavni православний: “True worded” is the native term which equates to the imported term Ortodoks (ортодокс from the greek orthodox)… It is in fact the appropriate term and goal of every bishop that he and his priests and people remain true-worded (православний) in the faith.

I thought PRAVOSLAVNY meant “right praise” or “right worship”, which is also a meaning of the Greek word ORTHODOXOS.

 

[jj2011]

So Schism is the answer?

No. Not the answer. Neither is ecumenism the answer. Neither is a Latinized liturgy the answer. Neither is the Charismatic movement the answer.

There is only one answer-- the faith of the Fathers, including belief in Rome’s primacy, which was manifested, among other places, in the Lateran Council of 649.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Pravoslavni православний: “True worded” is the native term which equates to the imported term Ortodoks (ортодокс from the greek orthodox)… It is in fact the appropriate term and goal of every bishop that he and his priests and people remain true-worded (православний) in the faith.

I thought PRAVOSLAVNY meant “right praise” or “right worship”, which is also a meaning of the Greek word ORTHODOXOS.

orthodoxos : Greek ortho-, ortho- + Greek doxa, opinion (from dokein, to think).]

Crudely “right thinking”

Orthopraxis seems to more closely fit your latter definition…

 

[Apotheoun]

Beginning with the Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Old Testament the Greek word doxa was used in order to refer to the “glory” of the Lord (and even “glory” in a general sense), and this new usage of the term continued in the New Testament writings (cf. Matthew 4:8, 6:13 and 29, 16:27, 19:28, 24:30 and 25:31; Mark 8:38, 10:37 and 13:26; Luke 2:9, 14 and 32, 12:27, 14:10, 17:18, 19:38, 21:27, and 24:26; John 1:14, 2:11, 7:18, 8:50 and 17:5, 22 and 24), and ultimately is found also in the writings of the Church Fathers and the liturgy.

 

[Aramis]

Pravoslavni православний: “True worded” is the native term which equates to the imported term Ortodoks (ортодокс from the greek orthodox)… It is in fact the appropriate term and goal of every bishop that he and his priests and people remain true-worded (православний) in the faith.

I thought PRAVOSLAVNY meant “right praise” or “right worship”, which is also a meaning of the Greek word ORTHODOXOS.

Slova is Glory
Slava is Word

The dictionaries I’ve got loaded indicate pravoslavnij (actually, православний) as “being orthodox” and orthodoxis is literally “correctly believing” or “right-believing”.

Still, it is the traditional (1000+ years) slavic term for holding the true faith correctly.

 

[Patchunky]

Slova is Glory
Slava is Word

The dictionaries I’ve got loaded indicate pravoslavnij (actually, православний) as “being orthodox” and orthodoxis is literally “correctly believing” or “right-believing”.

Still, it is the traditional (1000+ years) slavic term for holding the true faith correctly.

WRONG!

SLAVA means glory as in “SLAVA VO VYSNICH BOHU” and “SLAVA ISUSU CHRISTU” and “SLAVA OTCU I SYNU I SVJATOMU DUCHY”

SLOVA means WORD… as in SLOVE BOZI… the word of God…

 

[Patchunky]

Slova is Glory
Slava is Word

The dictionaries I’ve got loaded indicate pravoslavnij (actually, православний) as “being orthodox” and orthodoxis is literally “correctly believing” or “right-believing”.

Still, it is the traditional (1000+ years) slavic term for holding the true faith correctly.

Some documentation just in case…

<слава> fame, glory Pokorny 1: k̑leu-, k̑leu̯ə- : k̑lū- :: to hear] – 4.64, 7.182, 7.268, 8.204 <славити, -вл҄ѭ, -виши> glorify Pokorny 1: k̑leu-, k̑leu̯ə- : k̑lū- :: to hear] – 7.380 <слово> word Pokorny 1: k̑leu-, k̑leu̯ə- : k̑lū- :: to hear] – 9.9, 10.346, 10.348, 10.355\

this information is from: utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/ocsol-BF-X.html

 

[Woodstock]

Will someone please explain the background of this to me?

Reading between the lines, this is what I’ve gleaned.

These four men say they were elevated to the episcopate. (By whom? Conjecture is it has to do with the SSPX.) Since they were in Ukraine, they say they had to be secretive and go through improper channels because times were tough and the faithful were underground. (When do they claim they were consecrated? And why did they wait this long to announce it?) They want to be recognized as bishops of the UGCC. They did not submit their requests to the UGCC, but instead submitted them to Rome. They claim they have to go to Rome because the UGCC synod is corrupt. (That’s going to win a lot of brownie points.) If Rome acts on it, it will undermine the autonomy of the UGCC. The appropriate course of action is to determine that the proper authority is the UGCC synod. (Is there a canonical reason Rome would have jurisdiction? I guess they could rule that the UGCC synod is not corrupt and *then *send it to them.) Now we all wait to see what happens.

So what have I messed up? Any help?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Will someone please explain the background of this to me?

Reading between the lines, this is what I’ve gleaned.

These four men say they were elevated to the episcopate. (By whom? Conjecture is it has to do with the SSPX.) Since they were in Ukraine, they say they had to be secretive and go through improper channels because times were tough and the faithful were underground. (When do they claim they were consecrated? And why did they wait this long to announce it?) They want to be recognized as bishops of the UGCC. They did not submit their requests to the UGCC, but instead submitted them to Rome. They claim they have to go to Rome because the UGCC synod is corrupt. (That’s going to win a lot of brownie points.) If Rome acts on it, it will undermine the autonomy of the UGCC. The appropriate course of action is to determine that the proper authority is the UGCC synod. (Is there a canonical reason Rome would have jurisdiction? I guess they could rule that the UGCC synod is not corrupt and *then *send it to them.) Now we all wait to see what happens.

So what have I messed up? Any help?

I actually wrote the article. FWIW, I offer no conjecture of an SSPX consecrator.

 

[jj2011]

I see no reason to suspect that SSPX knew about this group or was involved, except possibly the notion that “if it’s schism, it’s SSPX.” If SSPX bishops were to do a consecration, it would have been of Fr Kovpak in SSJK.