Are Ukrainian Catholics part of the Latin Church?

[Alexius]

In response to the original post: Yes and No…

If you mean in the sense that the Pope is Latin and therfore the churches under him are part of this church, then yes. If you mean that the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is “Roman” Catholic, then no.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Aramis]

Waitaminnit - Y’all have me thoroughly confused!

When I was received into the Church, I asked to be (and was told that I had been) received as a Byzantine Ukrainian (Slavonic) Catholic. I was told that this particular description indicated:

1. 
   *]The sui iuris ritual church to which I belonged (Byzantine);
   *]The rescension (or ethnic group) to which I belonged (Ukrainian - but only by choice; I’m as Anglo as a crumpet);
   *]The liturgical language that was part of our tradition (Slavonic); and
   *]The overall family of faith I had joined (Catholic).
   I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Roman Catholic or part of the Latin Rite, although I attend a Roman parish because there are no Byzantine parishes in my area.

1. 
   Not to be pedantic, but you got the labels wrong…
   
   Byzantine: The Rite used
   Ukrainian: The recension AND the Sui Iuris Church.
   Slavonic: Liturgical Language.
   Catholic: Which communion of Churches your Church is in. As opposed to Orthodox (Eastern Orthodox Communion) or Independent Orthodox (IE, none)

 

[Aramis]

Cardinal Hussar is not a patriarch, and the UGCC is not a patriarchal church. Despite the popularity of referring to him as a patriarch.

He is the Major Archbishop in charge of the UGCC. He is elected by his synod, he also confirms all UGCC episcopal and metropolitanate elections. If he doesn’t (for whatever reason), it can be done by the Pope. The CCEO clearly delineates the Rights and Responsibilities. He himself was elected by his church to be Major Archbishop, but could not be enthroned as such until the Pope approved.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

No, they Byzantine Catholic. They are part of the Catholic Church just like the Latin Church.

 

[mardukm]

(1) Then if spiritual ties have no geographic boundaries, then the same rules should apply outside Ukraine as inside. And, as such the papal nuncio had no business installing a UGCC Metropolitan or the there was no necessity for the previous Metropolitan to hand his resignation directly to the pope, and request retirement from the pope. You keep bringing up Oriental Orthodox & Catholic examples. The discussion is on whether the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is part of the Latin Church or not. I’m giving examples that contradict the claim that it isn’t but instead it is an independent self ruling church. And you are coming back with excuses that have nothing to do with the UGCC. I’m talking apples and you are replying with oranges!

I’m afraid I’ll admit to your last line because I do not understand your line of reasoning. Can you clarify your position by explaining more concisely the rationale of your syllogism in the first sentence as it relates to the second sentence. I mean, how do you draw from the statement that spiritual ties have no geographic boundaries a conclusion that the papal nuncio therefore had no business in the matter? Are you aware the the papal nuncio is a LEGATE of the Pope, and did not act under his own authority?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Aramis:

rcwhiteh:

Waitaminnit - Y’all have me thoroughly confused!

When I was received into the Church, I asked to be (and was told that I had been) received as a Byzantine Ukrainian (Slavonic) Catholic. I was told that this particular description indicated:
The sui iuris ritual church to which I belonged (Byzantine);
The rescension (or ethnic group) to which I belonged (Ukrainian - but only by choice; I’m as Anglo as a crumpet);
The liturgical language that was part of our tradition (Slavonic); and
The overall family of faith I had joined (Catholic).
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Roman Catholic or part of the Latin Rite, although I attend a Roman parish because there are no Byzantine parishes in my area.

Not to be pedantic, but you got the labels wrong…

Byzantine: The Rite used
Ukrainian: The recension AND the Sui Iuris Church.
Slavonic: Liturgical Language.
Catholic: Which communion of Churches your Church is in. As opposed to Orthodox (Eastern Orthodox Communion) or Independent Orthodox (IE, none)

No.

The formulation cited is actually obsolete, suggesting that Mr White was received some years back, as I don’t think the term Slavonic is still included in the texts presently (but I could be wrong on that score)

Byzantine is indeed indicative of the Rite
Slavonic is the Tradition
Ukrainian is the Church sui iuris
The Rescension would be Ruthenian (or Little Russian)

Many years,

Neil

 

[Joe_Monahan]

I’ve been reading this thread for 2 days now and been troubled by it but couldn’t articulate why until now, but I think something Bob/Orthodoc wrote finally triggered my mind. This thread and the premise enunciated by its title and poll have the same flaw that was exhibited in the recent thread on the “canonicity” of various ecclesia styling themselves “Orthodox”.

At the time, I made clear that “canonical” in that context was a term of art with a defined meaning and was not arguable as the Orthodox elected to apply it or its opposite, “non-canonical”, to any Church.

By the same token, “Church sui iuris” is a term of art and is likewise not arguable as applied to the UGCC or other Churches within the (Roman) Catholic Church - including the Latin Catholic Church. So, as a factual matter, the UGCC is not a part of the Latin Church, but is one of those Churches which, together, constitute the {Roman) Catholic Church (or the Papal Catholic Church), as some would have it.

The thread is closed. If folks desire to argue the validity of applying “sui iuris” to the various EC/OC ecclesia or to argue the autonomy of such ecclesia, they are free to do so in another thread - but, like canonical status. this particular question is a settled matter and not open to debate.

Joe