Cardinal Koch visits Ukraine to deepen Catholic-Orthodox dialogue

[IsidoreOfKiev]

en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/06/04/cardinal_koch_visits_ukraine_to_deepen_catholic-orthodox_dialogue/en1-698446

“It’s the first time I am able to go to Ukraine and for me it’s very important to have meetings with all the Churches, the Orthodox, the Greek Catholic and Latin Catholics……
I see it as very important to deepen relationships between Catholics and Orthodox because we also have a difficult situation between the Orthodox Churches and it’s clear we can have official relations only with the Orthodox Church united with the Patriarchate of Moscow……
I think it’s important that Pope Francis has had responsibility for all the Oriental Catholic Churches (in Argentina) and he knows this reality so the dialogue between Oriental Catholics and Orthodox Churches is very important for him….”

Am I reading this right? Is he saying that they will not have official relations with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate?

 

[UncleBill]

en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/06/04/cardinal_koch_visits_ukraine_to_deepen_catholic-orthodox_dialogue/en1-698446

Am I reading this right? Is he saying that they will not have official relations with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate?

I think Rome had been clear in her actions that while dealing with Byzantine Orthodoxy, they will deal with Constantinople and Moscow. Even within Orthodoxy the Kiev Patriarchy is disputed. Why would Rome get involved in Orthodoxy’s disputes?

 

[Peter_J]

en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/06/04/cardinal_koch_visits_ukraine_to_deepen_catholic-orthodox_dialogue/en1-698446

Am I reading this right? Is he saying that they will not have official relations with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate?

That’s how I read it too.

I think Rome had been clear in her actions that while dealing with Byzantine Orthodoxy, they will deal with Constantinople and Moscow.

That’s not right. Constantinople and Moscow are just more significant Orthodox participants in the dialogues (ranking first and having the most adherents, respectively).

 

[Aramis]

Meanwhile, HB Sviatoslav has been working closely with the UOC-KP…

Not the first time Cdl. Koch has said something out of line with what’s happening.

There were, as far as I can tell, at least 3 “Ukrainian Orthodox” churches, including the nearly protestant UAOC, the very byzantine UOC-KP, and the UOC-MP (which is an anomalous entity based upon historic praxis.

 

[Peter_J]

There were, as far as I can tell, at least 3 “Ukrainian Orthodox” churches, including the nearly protestant UAOC,

Interesting. I’ve never heard it described as “nearly protestant”.

the very byzantine UOC-KP, and the UOC-MP (which is an anomalous entity based upon historic praxis.

Do you mean because it is Autonomous?

 

[Aramis]

Interesting. I’ve never heard it described as “nearly protestant”.

The UAOC appear to be to Orthodoxy much as Lutherans or High-Church Anglicans are to Catholics - near identical liturgical praxis, but some strong elements of non-orthodox theology. Or perhaps that was just certain English speaking bishops of that church.

On to the UOC-MP

Do you mean because it is Autonomous?

No, because it’s not autocephalous, as Kyiv is the historic parent church of Moscow, not the other way around. Moscow, in becoming an autocephalous church, should have never again been in the same hierarchy as Kyiv; they should have been sister churches. Kyiv never transferred its see to Moscow.

It’s a clear case of Russian Imperialism both during the late Tsarist era and the Soviet era extending not just to the civil state, but also to the Orthodox Churches. And not just in the Ukraine - Georgia as well.

 

[Schism_hater]

On to the UOC-MP

No, because it’s not autocephalous, as Kyiv is the historic parent church of Moscow, not the other way around. Moscow, in becoming an autocephalous church, should have never again been in the same hierarchy as Kyiv; they should have been sister churches. Kyiv never transferred its see to Moscow.

It’s a clear case of Russian Imperialism both during the late Tsarist era and the Soviet era extending not just to the civil state, but also to the Orthodox Churches. And not just in the Ukraine - Georgia as well.

You know, as an undoubtably naive newbie Orthodox, I have to say I’m pretty much in favor of dumping this historical baggage. We aren’t living in the 11th century anymore. Moscow is undoubtably a much more important center of Orthodoxy now that Kiev is, and should be an autocephalous church. That doesn’t necessarily mean Kiev must be subordinate to Moscow, I’m not going to get into that. For the same reason, against the scruples of many of my Orthodox brethren, I have no problem with Western rites in the Orthodox church, even if perhaps they cannot impeccably trace their lineage in Orthodoxy. And though I’m a big fan of the EP, I’m not sure he needs to be in Istanbul anymore, although there are weightier concerns there.

It’s time for all of us to face up to the realities of the 21st century.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It’s time for all of us to face up to the realities of the 21st century.

Amen, and to best prepare ourselves for the century. We are all in this together, we may not have arrived together, but we are here together now.

 

[Peter_J]

And though I’m a big fan of the EP, I’m not sure he needs to be in Istanbul anymore, although there are weightier concerns there.

I think that ship has sailed. Specifically, after Istanbul/Constantinople became part of Turkey, I believe that the EP *could *have moved to a different part of Greece. Instead, however, the Church of Greece became a separate autocephalous church.

 

[KyivAndrew]

It’s a clear case of Russian Imperialism both during the late Tsarist era and the Soviet era extending not just to the civil state, but also to the Orthodox Churches. And not just in the Ukraine - Georgia as well.

And Moldova too.

 

[Schism_hater]

It’s a clear case of Russian Imperialism both during the late Tsarist era and the Soviet era extending not just to the civil state, but also to the Orthodox Churches. And not just in the Ukraine - Georgia as well.

Well, there’s been plenty of “imperialism” over the last 2000 years, both by states and by ecclesiastical organizations. Perhaps it’s time we let all that go.

 

[KyivAndrew]

It’s time for all of us to face up to the realities of the 21st century.

Do you believe the Russian Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow is facing up to the reality in 21st century Ukraine by stubbornly refusing to even consider autocephaly for the Orthodox Church in Ukraine? I mean the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) functions autonomously in name, though that sometimes appears in doubt, and even this Church does not account for most Orthodox believers in Ukraine but the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyivan Patriarchate) does, which remains noncanonical on the books. This schism isn’t going away, and that’s largely because of the political and ecclesial policies being pursued by the MP Patriarch Kirill and by the Kremlin’s Putin in Ukraine.

You have the biggest schism in world Orthodoxy - in Ukraine with the UOC (Kyivan Patriarchate) and UOC (Moscow Patriarchate) - simply because the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) can’t bear to have a Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in existence which would be canonical. I believe the Ecumenical Patriarch long ago would gave agreed to Ukraine, as the country with the world’s second largest Orthodox population, having its own Autocephalous Orthodox Church (God knows smaller countries do, and even have patriarchs). Indeed, the Ecumenical Patriarch if I’m not mistaken still technically considers Ukraine as his canonical territory as it was originally.

We can avoid putting “prefixes” before the word imperialism if you wish, but let’s be clear about where it’s coming from and where it’s causing a drag on ecumenism. Unlike the MP, the Ecumenical Patriarch had no problems meeting and welcoming on an official level the Head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church Sviatoslav Shevchuk recently to himself. I believe the EP is facing up to realities, as you advised.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Instead of starting a new thread, I’ll just follow up by noting the Russian Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow has always insisted he cannot meet with the Pope because of the situation with Ukrainian Catholics in Galicia (western Ukraine) whom the Russian Patriarch believes should not have taken back the churches which were taken from them by Stalin in 1946, in essence. Galicia had never belonged to the Russian Empire or Soviet Union until 1945, nor was it Moscow’s canonical territory, ever.

The Ukrainian Catholic Church is liquidated in 1946 in Galicia (and in Zakarpattia), forty-five years later, the Soviet Union then falls apart, and the Ukrainian Catholics who had been surviving underground reclaim their churches, not all mind you. The Orthodox keep many. The Orthodox now reside and worship freely in this old bastion of Ukrainian Greek Catholicism in Galicia. Indeed, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyivan Patriarchate) states it has no problems with its churches in western Ukraine, and now on May 27 the administrator of the UOC-MP Metropolitan Anthony (Pakanych) of Boryspil has stated that in Galicia there is no tension between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics and the relationship between the two churches (Orthodox Moscow Patriarchate and Ukrainian Catholics) in this region is stable.

Patriarch Shevchuk: Moscow Must Hear Metropolitan Anthony’s Words about the Stable Relations between the Greek Catholics and Orthodox in Galicia
risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/confessional/interchurch_relations/52595/

Maybe Moscow might finally stop using our Church’s existence and development as an excuse not to meet the Pope, although I doubt it, and I’m not sure the Pope should be eager to meet the Patriarch of Moscow in Christian brotherhood if the desire is not mutual.

 

[Nestor_kea]

In fact I am not fan of establishing new patriarchates because I think that having 5 (or 11) highest jurisdictions is better then 50. Now at least the catholic patriarchates are not working properly (Alexandria is not head for the whole Africa, Antioch is not head of the whole East ~ Asia…). But this is just my opinion which is better suitable with “ideal state of things”, not with reality as it is now.

On the other hand, churches in “Orthodox communion” are working differently and my impression is that in Orthodoxy it is “normal” or “suitable” to have national churches and national patriarchates. And being autonomous is not good enough. In this way it seems to be appropriate to claim to have autocephalus patriarchate for Ukraine. If I read the history properly, the “not unusual” scenario is that some church declares herself to be independent, thus creates schism with her mother church, but the others one after another acceptate the new church and finally the mother church officially accepts the reality. If Ukrainians would have just one Othodox Church which is the whole “separatistic”, then probably this scenario would be better working. But Orthodoxes in the Ukraine are belonging to two entities + others. I do not have much inner information about these MP - KP issues. (Yes, I have one “point” from Russian family living in Eastern Ukraine who told that they would prefer to be ateists than under Kyiv but this is a “special case”.) Isn’t the MP-KP border like Ukrainians-Russians or Ukrainian speaking Ukrainians - (Russian speaking Ukrainians + Russians)? Or this is not matter at all? I don’t know but would like to.

Within Catholic Church the Pope can establish or cease sui iuris churches and change their ranks like exarchate → eparchy → metropolia → major archeparchial church or also vice verse. According to my opinion this is tool how the official structure and jurisdictions can be maintained more in-time. Mechanisms like this are (as I see it) more problematic, less effective or just absent in Orthodoxy. If something like this were normal within Orthodoxy and exercised by ecclesiastical authority like Ecumenical Patriarchate (and not by Tsar or MP), then putting rank of Kyiv down would probably not be so painful. But now it is “ecclesiastical imperialism” and state of being older and mother see under the newer one seems to be odd. For the other side it is probably just “reflection of reality and history” establishing no reason or excuse for moving the things centuries back. And of course politics and so on. Me myself don’t have preferred possibility which I would feel to be better or more just (locally in time and not in intensions of an “absolute truth”).

And thanks for good news about statement of UOC-MP hierarch. I could write a lot about this issue and not only in the Ukraine but it would be really for a new thread.

 

[Peter_J]

Within Catholic Church the Pope can establish or cease sui iuris churches and change their ranks like exarchate → eparchy → metropolia → major archeparchial church or also vice verse. According to my opinion this is tool how the official structure and jurisdictions can be maintained more in-time. Mechanisms like this are (as I see it) more problematic, less effective or just absent in Orthodoxy. If something like this were normal within Orthodoxy and exercised by ecclesiastical authority like Ecumenical Patriarchate
…

I’ve never really looked into it, but it may be normal for autonomous churches. (E.g. the Finnish Orthodox Church, which is autonomous under Constantinople.)

 

[ConstantineTG]

In fact I am not fan of establishing new patriarchates because I think that having 5 (or 11) highest jurisdictions is better then 50. Now at least the catholic patriarchates are not working properly (Alexandria is not head for the whole Africa, Antioch is not head of the whole East ~ Asia…). But this is just my opinion which is better suitable with “ideal state of things”, not with reality as it is now.

Remember that the 4 ancient Patriarchates were established to rule their own corner of the Roman Empire. Jerusalem was given this status merely as an honorific being the Holy City. New Patriarchates are needed to rule the other lands beyond the First Millennium Roman/Byzantine Empire. But Rome has chosen to extend her borders rather than establish new Patriarchs in places like the Americas and the Far East.

 

[Peter_J]

Remember that the 4 ancient Patriarchates were established to rule their own corner of the Roman Empire. Jerusalem was given this status merely as an honorific being the Holy City. New Patriarchates are needed to rule the other lands beyond the First Millennium Roman/Byzantine Empire. But Rome has chosen to extend her borders rather than establish new Patriarchs in places like the Americas and the Far East.

I think that the recent popes have, in fact, been interested in decentralizing the Latin Church – although they naturally have to be carefully not to say anything that could be a taken wrongly.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think that the recent popes have, in fact, been interested in decentralizing the Latin Church – although they naturally have to be carefully not to say anything that could be a taken wrongly.

Recent? Only Pope Francis so far has shown any clear indication of that. But I doubt they will establish Patriarchates in the Americas. The Orthodox have been driving for that for a long time now but as everyone knows, glaciers run faster than the Orthodox Church

 

[SyroMalankara]

Disagree - Pope Benedict and Pope JP2 were in favor of decentralization.

 

[Peter_J]

Disagree - Pope Benedict and Pope JP2 were in favor of decentralization.

Indeed, I believe Pope Benedict (before he was pope) explicitly mentioned the possibility of the Latin Church being divided into different patriarchates.