Are Ukrainian Catholics part of the Latin Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter francesco920
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tradition says that all Churches in Union with Rome will commemorate the Pope in every divine worship service, and then their Patriarch, if any, their Metropolitan/Archbishop, if any, their Eparch/Bishop, if any, any visiting bishops present for the Divine Worship Service, if any.

So, for the Divine Liturgy last night at St Nicholas, the commemorations were, in order:
Benedict XVI
Metropolitan Basil
Eparch William of Van Nuys (Local Eparch and Celebrant)
Archbishop Roger of Anchorage (Roman Rite, Concelebrant, technically Visiting)
Eparch John of St’s Cyril and Methodius in Toronto (Slovak, Concelebrant, visiting)

CCEO Canon 209 requires the local Eparch to commemorate the Pope in every divine liturgy and divine praises, and to require same of his presbyters and deacons. It also requires the other clergy to commemorate the eparchial bishop in every divine worship and in every Divine Praises.
 
Until the EO’s commemorate the elder brother I will not consider doxing. One can only listen so long to the protestations of the EO’s that all patriarchs are to be commemorated and that while they don’t consider the Patriarch of Rome as supreme they do recognizing him as the first among equals and then see what they actually do and don’t do before one realizes that something is not quite right about the EO position.

No thanks EOs it’s Eastern Catholicism for me.

CDL
 
GregoryPalamas said:
while they don’t consider the Patriarch of Rome as supreme they do recognizing him as the first among equals and then see what they actually do and don’t do before one realizes that something is not quite right about the EO position.
Click to expand...
I think that the notion of the Bishop of Rome as first among equals belongs to the first millennium. Since the schism of the last 1000 years he does not hold that position and I doubt if he could hold that position again in a reunited East and West. Rome has simply been too damaged by its millennium of isolation to be able to stand at the head of a united Church of East and West.
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
I think that the notion of the Bishop of Rome as first among equals belongs to the first millennium. Since the schism of the last 1000 years he does not hold that position and I doubt if he could hold that position again in a reunited East and West. Rome has simply been too damaged by its millennium of isolation to be able to stand at the head of a united Church of East and West.
Click to expand...
That isn’t what I was told by an Orthodox priest when I was considering conversion to Orthodoxy. In any event one can make up all sorts of reasons not to follow Jesus’ instructions and prayers recorded in John 17.

The older I get the less patient I am with quibbling.

It has been observed that the split between East and West has kept more people away from faith in God than any other single thing. I’m inclined to agree.

CDL
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
I think that the notion of the Bishop of Rome as first among equals belongs to the first millennium. Since the schism of the last 1000 years he does not hold that position and I doubt if he could hold that position again in a reunited East and West. Rome has simply been too damaged by its millennium of isolation to be able to stand at the head of a united Church of East and West.
Click to expand...
And yet it does lead a church with both east and west.
 
Aramis said:
Tradition says that all Churches in Union with Rome will commemorate the Pope in every divine worship service, and then their Patriarch, if any, their Metropolitan/Archbishop, if any, their Eparch/Bishop, if any, any visiting bishops present for the Divine Worship Service, if any.

So, for the Divine Liturgy last night at St Nicholas, the commemorations were, in order:
Benedict XVI
Metropolitan Basil
Eparch William of Van Nuys (Local Eparch and Celebrant)
Archbishop Roger of Anchorage (Roman Rite, Concelebrant, technically Visiting)
Eparch John of St’s Cyril and Methodius in Toronto (Slovak, Concelebrant, visiting)

CCEO Canon 209 requires the local Eparch to commemorate the Pope in every divine liturgy and divine praises, and to require same of his presbyters and deacons. It also requires the other clergy to commemorate the eparchial bishop in every divine worship and in every Divine Praises.
Click to expand...
Well, this says a lot!:cool:
 
Aramis said:
Tradition says that all Churches in Union with Rome will commemorate the Pope in every divine worship service, and then their Patriarch, if any, their Metropolitan/Archbishop, if any, their Eparch/Bishop, if any, any visiting bishops present for the Divine Worship Service, if any.

So, for the Divine Liturgy last night at St Nicholas, the commemorations were, in order:
Benedict XVI
Metropolitan Basil
Eparch William of Van Nuys (Local Eparch and Celebrant)
Archbishop Roger of Anchorage (Roman Rite, Concelebrant, technically Visiting)
Eparch John of St’s Cyril and Methodius in Toronto (Slovak, Concelebrant, visiting)

CCEO Canon 209 requires the local Eparch to commemorate the Pope in every divine liturgy and divine praises, and to require same of his presbyters and deacons. It also requires the other clergy to commemorate the eparchial bishop in every divine worship and in every Divine Praises.
Click to expand...
Strange question that brother StMark asked, at least to my Oriental ears. In my Tradition, commemoration of a bishop other than one’s own means nothing more than communion with that other bishop, and doesn’t indicate any level of submission. You commemorate your Patriarch for the same reason - though you ARE in submission, aside from your local bishop, the commemoration itself, in the context of the Mass, designates COMMUNION more than anything else.

Marduk
 
StMarkEofE said:
Well, this says a lot!:cool:
Click to expand...
Yes it sure does. Have I missed it, or has anyone answered your other questions?

Living here in Philly I distinctly remember both issues you mention being brought up on the Byzantine Forum a few years back.

Orthodoc
 
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.

    Now, when y’all talk about “Ukrainian Catholics”, are you talking about people like me, or are you talking about Roman Catholics who live in Ukraine? I haven’t heard of the “Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church”; is that supposed to refer to me?

    Pani Rose, if you’re listening, help me out here!
 
rcwhiteh said:
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.

    Now, when y’all talk about “Ukrainian Catholics”, are you talking about people like me, or are you talking about Roman Catholics who live in Ukraine? I haven’t heard of the “Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church”; is that supposed to refer to me?

    Pani Rose, if you’re listening, help me out here!
Click to expand...

  1. Pani Rose must be busy so, if you forgive me, you are, indeed, one of the faithful of the UGCC. Btw, Pani Rose is a member of the Byzantine Catholic Church (Ruthenian) but attends with her entire family a Melkite parish (also Byzantine but Middle Eastern in origin).

    Of course, there are Ukrainians who are faithful of the Latin Church in Ukraine, mostly of non-Ukrainian in ethnicity; but that is not the subject of this poll/thread.
 
rcwhiteh said:
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.

    Now, when y’all talk about “Ukrainian Catholics”, are you talking about people like me, or are you talking about Roman Catholics who live in Ukraine? I haven’t heard of the “Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church”; is that supposed to refer to me?

    Pani Rose, if you’re listening, help me out here!
Click to expand...

  1. In the Ukraine it is. The former pope refused those within the Eastern Rite to use the Ukrainian Catholic title within Ukraine. That title is reserved exclusively for those who use the Latin Rite. Ukrainians within the Unia are to be identified as Ukrainian Greek Catholics.

    Orthodoc
 
mardukm said:
In my Tradition, commemoration of a bishop other than one’s own means nothing more than communion with that other bishop, and doesn’t indicate any level of submission. You commemorate your Patriarch for the same reason
Click to expand...
Properly speaking a priest commemorates ONLY his own bishop and nobody else. This is still observed in nearly all the Orthodox Churches. During my 20 years as a Serbian priest I never commemorated the Patriarch once.

Russia however now requires its priests to commemorate the Patriarch as well as the local bishop. In America the whole situation is becoming quite confused. The Greeks commemorate only their local bishop; the Serbs have started to commemorate their Patriarch also (but only in the US, not in Serbia.)

It may seem a small point but I believe that we should maintain the ancient tradition which reflects the Orthodox eucharistic concept of the Church much better.
 
StMarkEofE said:
Ok, I’ve been told that the UCC is self governing but any appointments or retirements must go through Rome for approval.

Can this be disputed. IOW, can Cardinal Husar elevate priests to bishop or archbishop without notifying Rome? Has it ever been done? And please dont give me this thing about “Well we do like to keep the Vatican informed by what we do” because this shouldnt be any business of Rome what the UCC does in regards to its hierarchy IF they are truly self governing.
Click to expand...
REPLY:

ukrweekly.com/Archive/2001/100102.shtml

Excerpts:

More than 2,000 faithful and clergy, as well as prelates from the Ukrainian Catholic, Ukrainian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches filled the cathedral to witness the ceremony, which began at 2:30 p.m. (*) **The official enthronement itself was conducted by Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, apostolic nuncio to the United States. **Two newly appointed cardinals, Archbishop Major Lubomyr Husar, primate of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, and Roman Catholic Archbishop Theodore McCarrick of Washington, participated in the event. Also present were Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua of the Latin-rite Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal William Keeler of the Archdiocese of Baltimore.

(*) Question: Since Archbishop Husar was present, why didn’t he do the installation instead of Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo? Since, as stated here that he is the primate of the UGCC? Why would the installation be done by the apostolic nuncio to the U.S. ?

If the UGCC is an independent sui juris church as you are claiming it should be the one making these decisions and carrying them out without interference from Rome no matter where the church is located!
Ukrainian Weekly, The
02-25-2001
New metropolitan for U.S. Ukrainians to be enthroned

PHILADELPHIA - Tuesday, February 27, will be a historic day in the life of
the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the United States as Bishop Stefan Soroka,
49, of Winnipeg, is enthroned as metropolitan-archbishop of the Ukrainian
Catholic Archeparchy of Philadelphia.

The new spiritual leader of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the United
States succeeds Metropolitan-Archbishop Stephen Sulyk, 76, who submitted
his resignation to Pope John Paul II, pursuant to the provisions of canon
law upon reaching the age of 75 in …
Question: If the UGCC is not part of the Latin Church and independent as you claim then -
1) Why didn’t Archbishop Sulyk submit his resignation to Archbishop Husar rather than directly to the pope?
Orthodoc
 
Orthodoc said:
REPLY:

ukrweekly.com/Archive/2001/100102.shtml

Excerpts:

More than 2,000 faithful and clergy, as well as prelates from the Ukrainian Catholic, Ukrainian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches filled the cathedral to witness the ceremony, which began at 2:30 p.m. (*) **The official enthronement itself was conducted by Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, apostolic nuncio to the United States. **Two newly appointed cardinals, Archbishop Major Lubomyr Husar, primate of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, and Roman Catholic Archbishop Theodore McCarrick of Washington, participated in the event. Also present were Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua of the Latin-rite Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal William Keeler of the Archdiocese of Baltimore.

(*) Question: Since Archbishop Husar was present, why didn’t he do the installation instead of Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo? Since, as stated here that he is the primate of the UGCC? Why would the installation be done by the apostolic nuncio to the U.S. ?

If the UGCC is an independent sui juris church as you are claiming it should be the one making these decisions and carrying them out without interference from Rome no matter where the church is located!
Ukrainian Weekly, The
02-25-2001
New metropolitan for U.S. Ukrainians to be enthroned

PHILADELPHIA - Tuesday, February 27, will be a historic day in the life of
the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the United States as Bishop Stefan Soroka,
49, of Winnipeg, is enthroned as metropolitan-archbishop of the Ukrainian
Catholic Archeparchy of Philadelphia.

The new spiritual leader of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the United
States succeeds Metropolitan-Archbishop Stephen Sulyk, 76, who submitted
his resignation to Pope John Paul II, pursuant to the provisions of canon
law upon reaching the age of 75 in …
Question: If the UGCC is not part of the Latin Church and independent as you claim then -
1) Why didn’t Archbishop Sulyk submit his resignation to Archbishop Husar rather than directly to the pope?
Orthodoc
Click to expand...
I believe only Patriarchal Churches have a head bishop that has the spiritual prerogative to confirm/enthrone. From what I have read, the UGCC and the Ruthenians (not sure if there are others) are not Patriarchates. Thus, it seems natural, to me as a Catholic and an Oriental, for such actions as are being discussed to take place.

In the early Canons, bishops who had no Metropolitan or Patriarch came under the omophorion of the closest head bishop. I think the same principle applies here, except that geography is not the determining factor.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
I believe only Patriarchal Churches have a head bishop that has the spiritual prerogative to confirm/enthrone. From what I have read, the UGCC and the Ruthenians (not sure if there are others) are not Patriarchates. Thus, it seems natural, to me as a Catholic and an Oriental, for such actions as are being discussed to take place.

In the early Canons, bishops who had no Metropolitan or Patriarch came under the omophorion of the closest head bishop. I think the same principle applies here, except that geography is not the determining factor.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Then what is? Makes no sense. If the UGCC is an independent church as claimed, then it should have administrative control over all its churches worldwide. The rules that apply in Ukraine should also apply outside Ukraine. Otherwise the response to the poll should depend where one lives. And you all accuse us of being territorial!

And, in this case the bishop in question is being installed with the title of Metropolitan to replace an already existing Metropolitan who has resigned… So your whole reply confuses me.

Orthodoc
 
Dear brother Orthodoc,
Orthodoc said:
Then what is? Makes no sense.
Click to expand...
The determining factor is the spiritual ties, which knows no geographic boundaries. So it makes a whole lot of sense. This is actually at the heart of the schism within the Syrian Orthodox Church right now. The daughter Church in India seeks to separate itself from the mother Syrian Church over what the Indian Church believes is her right because of GEOGRAPHICAL considerations. The Patriarchal Church teaches that the boundaries of the Church are not determined by geography, and to believe that is regarded as a theological error, an ecclesiological heresy at worst.
40.png
orthodoc:
And, in this case the bishop in question is being installed with the title of Metropolitan to replace an already existing Metropolitan who has resigned… So your whole reply confuses me.
Click to expand...
Since the office of Metropolitan (though not the title) has largely disappeared from Eastern Orthodoxy, I understand your comment. In the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches, Metropolitans are considered head bishops, but even Metropolitans are under the omophorion of the next episcopal grade - the Patriarch. If there is no Patriarch in the local Church, then the right of installation/confirmation belongs to the bishop in the next grade - which in this case is the Pope. When the Ethiopian Church was not autocephalous, a similar order was evident in relation to the Coptic Church in Egypt.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
Dear brother Orthodoc,

(1) The determining factor is the spiritual ties, which knows no geographic boundaries. So it makes a whole lot of sense. This is actually at the heart of the schism within the Syrian Orthodox Church right now. The daughter Church in India seeks to separate itself from the mother Syrian Church over what the Indian Church believes is her right because of GEOGRAPHICAL considerations. The Patriarchal Church teaches that the boundaries of the Church are not determined by geography, and to believe that is regarded as a theological error, an ecclesiological heresy at worst.

Since the office of Metropolitan (though not the title) has largely disappeared from Eastern Orthodoxy, I understand your comment. In the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches, Metropolitans are considered head bishops, but even Metropolitans are under the omophorion of the next episcopal grade - the Patriarch. If there is no Patriarch in the local Church, then the right of installation/confirmation belongs to the bishop in the next grade - which in this case is the Pope. When the Ethiopian Church was not autocephalous, a similar order was evident in relation to the Coptic Church in Egypt.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
(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!

Orthodoc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top