C
Crescentinus
Guest
What do you guys think of this blogpost? o:
ercf.blogspot.com/2011/05/to-be-patriarchate-or-remain-major.html
ercf.blogspot.com/2011/05/to-be-patriarchate-or-remain-major.html
- Status
S
Splagchnizomai
Guest
:dts:
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
I may not be Ukrainian Greek Catholic (I am Melkite), but I like what I’ve seen of the blog. I couldn’t agree more that the Patriarchate should be officially recognized as such by Rome. It’s sad that politics have gotten in the way.
S
smad0142
Guest
I dislike how the Patriarchal title has not been granted yet solely for ecumenical reasons; we shoud be robust in our beliefs and our faith without being rude, but denying the patriarchal title because the Russians will throw a tantrum? The UGCC is the largest EC church and yet it is still only Major-Archepiscopal. It is also important to recognize that historically the Kiev was the Patriarchal See in the area, not Moscow.
H
Hesychios
Guest
That’s silly, on two counts.
The idea that “Rome won’t give us a patriarch because Moscow doesn’t like it” is something of an urban legend. People want to believe this so bad they can taste it.
People want to believe that because the alternative, that** Rome itself doesn’t want the UGCC to have a patriarch**, is too horrible to contemplate.
If there is a problem getting recognition, complain about the people who have the authority and responsibility to make it happen. Don’t complain about the boogeyman.
Much complaining has already been done (decades upon decades in fact). Now it is time for the UGCC to take matters into it’s own hands. If it will not do so, it has only itself to blame.
S
smad0142
Guest
It may be a boogeyman in the sense that RO Patriarch has never come out and said it directly, but at that high of a level things are often done behind close doors.
All the material on the matter, even though it is pure conjecture, indicates that the RO oppose such a move. I tend to agree with this assesment because I trust the Popes aren’t lying in this matter, and because other Orthodox have accused Moscow of trying to subvert and divide the Catholic and Orthodox churches in the Ukraine.
brama.com/news/press/2005/03/050311bishoppaulpeterjesep_orthodoxy.html
Furthermore the RO have done nothing, to the best of my knowledge, to distance themselves from these rumors.
But you are right to point out the possibility that the real issue lies with Rome and not with Moscow; but knowing the ecumencial concerns that run rampant in the Catholic Church these days, I am more inclined towards the latter.
All the material on the matter, even though it is pure conjecture, indicates that the RO oppose such a move. I tend to agree with this assesment because I trust the Popes aren’t lying in this matter, and because other Orthodox have accused Moscow of trying to subvert and divide the Catholic and Orthodox churches in the Ukraine.
brama.com/news/press/2005/03/050311bishoppaulpeterjesep_orthodoxy.html
Furthermore the RO have done nothing, to the best of my knowledge, to distance themselves from these rumors.
But you are right to point out the possibility that the real issue lies with Rome and not with Moscow; but knowing the ecumencial concerns that run rampant in the Catholic Church these days, I am more inclined towards the latter.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I don’t know what else to add. The UGCC indeed deserves an officially recognized Patriarch.
D
dcointin
Guest
What Eastern Catholic sees have the title of patriarchate?
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
The Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchate for one. I believe there is even a Coptic Catholic patriarchate, but I’m not sure on that one. Other than that…
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
If it is an urban legend, the Fr. Robert Taft has bought into it. Fr. Taft is more familiar with Vatican politics than anyone around here. He himself insists that the only reason the UGCC hasn’t been officially recognized as a patriarchal Church is because Rome is afraid of Moscow’s reaction.
Incidentally, Fr. Taft agrees with the assessment that the UGCC needs to take matters into its own hands. Effectively it has done so. The majority of the UGCC members (rightly) refer to +Sviatoslav as their Patriarch. There are a large number of other non-UGCC Eastern Catholics who refer to him as such as well. I believe some UGCC parishes even refer to him as their Patriarch in the DL, but I’m not sure on that one.
M
malphono
Guest
There are (not in any particular order):
- the Syro-Maronite Patriarch of Antioch and All the East
- the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch (with honorific for Alexandria and, I think, Jerusalem)
- the Armenian Catholicos-Patriarch of Cilicia
- the Syriac Patriarch of Antioch And all the East
- the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria
- the Chaldean Catholicos-Patriarch of Babylon
D
dcointin
Guest
Very interesting, thank you! It seems that the status of patriarchate is not restricted to the historic five patriarchates that Eastern Orthodoxy recognized. I would say that given the historical importance of Kiev as mother of the Slavic churches, and the importance of Ukranian Greek Catholics for the Eastern Catholic churches, that the title of patriarch would be warranted. In these kinds of cases it’s best to simply do it and let the mother church (in this case Rome) accept it as an accomplished fact. Quite a few Orthodox churches have received their autocephaly or autonomy in this way, so it’s not without precedent. Let’s also not forget that Constantinople raised itself to the rank of patriarchate, and number two at that, and Rome eventually acquiesced.
M
malphono
Guest
Actually, I’d say that it is so restricted. What seems to be an oddity is in Antioch, but of course there are solid historical reasons for that which have been mentioned time and again. Note also that, in the case of the Chaldeans and Armenians, the title “Catholicos-Patriarch” is used by the Orthodox counterparts as well.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
It is highly probable that the UCGG is limited to this unique form (does not exist, nor has not existed anywhere else in Christendom) for reasons, while not publicly acknowledged, can be clearly seen as “political”. I for one tend to believe that Archimandrite Robert Taft indeed has the benefit of an insiders perspective on this subject, and his related comments are credible, yet should not extend to Moscow without due reference.
Meanwhile, the UGCC is indeed fortunate to have such a young, dynamic leader, and if use of “Patriarch” is not permitted or appropriate, I personally shall always refer to him always as “His Beatitude”, as is permitted in manner of formal address (yet never as “Major Archbishop”, which sounds like the leader of a military chaplaincy).
May God grant him and the faithful of the UGCC many happy, healthy and blessed years!
BTW - while I like the blog, and do whole-heartedly support (as a fellow EC) the UGCC and His Beatitude, it does seem as if many statements in the post on the ecclesiastical status of the UGCC is more rhetoric than fact. The arguments in favor seem rather compelling, and the reasons for the current status have, in fairness, never been officially revealed (yet a read through the eastern church canons does leave one with a strong sense). There is thus no need for rhetoric - facts will suffice, and the dignity of this Church is readily apparent in its leader and its faithful.
Meanwhile, the UGCC is indeed fortunate to have such a young, dynamic leader, and if use of “Patriarch” is not permitted or appropriate, I personally shall always refer to him always as “His Beatitude”, as is permitted in manner of formal address (yet never as “Major Archbishop”, which sounds like the leader of a military chaplaincy).
May God grant him and the faithful of the UGCC many happy, healthy and blessed years!
BTW - while I like the blog, and do whole-heartedly support (as a fellow EC) the UGCC and His Beatitude, it does seem as if many statements in the post on the ecclesiastical status of the UGCC is more rhetoric than fact. The arguments in favor seem rather compelling, and the reasons for the current status have, in fairness, never been officially revealed (yet a read through the eastern church canons does leave one with a strong sense). There is thus no need for rhetoric - facts will suffice, and the dignity of this Church is readily apparent in its leader and its faithful.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Father Taft is a pretty opinionated fellow, and doen’t hesitate to speak his mind, so I don’t doubt it one bit.
He also said this: "We’ve got a patriarchate for the Copts whose total membership would fit in this room, for God’s sake. Give me a break. Maybe there shouldn’t be, that’s another question, but there is. "
So father Taft is certainly not sympathetic to everyone’s need of a patriarch. In just the same way there are Catholics who have no sympathy for the Ukrainian need for a patriarch. No real surprise there, but it is convenient to blame outsiders for this and redirect the ire away from themselves.
All this blaming Moscow is an excuse, not a reason.
The Popes of Rome have not shown this much deference toward Moscow when the issue was something needed by the Latin church. If the Pope really wanted to give the UGCC a patriarch, it would have happened by now.
Well, that’s a start.
Personally, I don’t have any objections to the UGCC having a patriarch, I have posted that before.
But what they need is self determination, patriarch or not. They do not have that and will not have that even if the Pope say it’s OK to have a patriarch. The change in title is really not going to make much of a difference.
The synod needs to name all of their own bishops anywhere in the world. They need to erect dioceses overseas on their own authority, even in Russia, Poland, Bielorussia and Lithuania … as well as in North and South America as needed.
They need to give their Bielorussian brothers a bishop or two, since Rome will not. They should give their Russian brothers a bishop, since Rome will not.
Rome is telling them that they do not have authority within their own traditional lands of the Union of Brest.
If Rome told the Melkites that they have no authority in Israel or Lebanon, how do you think the Melkites would take it? Rome will not do that because Rome would not get away with it.
This is the K’yivan Rus church, as long as they just see themselves and portray themselves in this limited fashion as people who want a patriarch for nationalist reasons, they have only themselves to blame.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Amen! Considering that the UGCC is already a global Church, the argument about territorial limitations has as much logic in modern context as suggesting that extensions of the Church of Rome be limited territorially to area formerly comprising the Papal States.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
I’ve just been told that in both the U.K. and Ireland His Beatitude Patriarch Sviatoslav is in fact referred to as “Patriarch” during the Divine Liturgy. 
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
He is referred to as Patriarch anywhere within the Ukrainian Catholic ChurchI’ve just been told that in both the U.K. and Ireland His Beatitude Patriarch Sviatoslav is in fact referred to as “Patriarch” during the Divine Liturgy.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Thanks, Constantine. I had my suspicion that this was so. It’s nice to have it confirmed. It seems that the only one who hasn’t recognized the fact that the UGCC is a Patriarchate is Rome. Give 'em time. Rome is a little overly cautious some times.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
I recently received a personal copy of the UGCC’s The Divine Liturgy: An Anthology for Worship.
In the Great Litany, the following petition appears:
Deacon: For our most holy universal Pontiff [Name], Pope of Rome, for our most blessed Patriarch (Major Archbishop) [Name], our most reverend Metropolitan [Name], our God-loving Bishop [Name], the reverend priesthood, the diaconate in Christ, and all the clergy and the people, let us pray to the Lord.
Not sure how the parenthetical (Major Archbishop) is supposed to be used or taken, but I was willing to bet $ that it is ignored in practice, and a Patriarch is commemorated.
- Status