Do members of an Eastern Church have a right to appeal to the Pope?

[JohnVIII]

An Eastern Church, if it is a Church in it’s own right, the final appeal for cases should be the primary authority of that Church, whether it be the Patriarch, the Archbishop, or a synod of bishops. But, as I see it, it should not be the Pope. Even if the Pope is seen as head of the universal church and the Church is in communion with Rome, Rome is not the same Church and if anyone were to “go over the head” of their own churches authority for an appeal to Rome they should not be allowed to do so.

My question leads to just how “high” is the Pope in the “High Petrine view” of the Church. Is, for example, his confirmation of an Ecumenical Counsel an absolute essential, or is it really more like an honorary respectful gesture. Was the 2nd Ecumenical Counsel of any less authority in the East prior to the day that the Pope finally confirmed it? Could it not be so that such a counsel just didn’t call it “Ecumenical” until the Pope confirmed it only out of respect for the Pope and the counsel really had no less authority prior to the Popes confirmation?

What if a nuclear bomb completely destroyed Rome and the papacy (God forbid!), couldn’t the Church start honoring some other bishop as first among equals and let him have the honor of confirming an Ecumenical Counsel?

If any of this can be so, the Church could continue if need be without Rome as the Pope is not so “high” as to be the only bishop able to fulfill the role of 1st hierarch of the whole Church. Or is the Pope so “high” that any Church without the Pope is “defective”.

beliefnet.com/story/221/story_22159_1.html

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

 

[JohnVIII]

Case in point…

-split from another thread-

…the Pope as a last resort is a “critical part of this apparatus”? …the decision that the local church of Carthage made in 419 AD:

Canon #134 of the Regional Council of Carthage, 419 AD:
“It has pleased the Counsel to decree that if Presbyters, Deacons, and other lower Clerics in whatever causes they may have are not satisfied with the decision of their own Bishops, the shall be heard and the differences between them shall be adjusted by those whom they may appoint with the consent of their own Bishop to review their case. But if they want to take an appeal even from the decision rendered by these men, they shall have no right to an appeal, except to the votes of the African Council or to the Primates of their own provinces, As for anyone that insists upon carrying an appeal across the sea [Rome], let him not be received in communion by anyone in Africa.”

Dear brother Adrian…

I believe you are failing to consider the historical and circumstantial contexts in which these canons were given. Would you be willing to take a look at those contexts? I would explain it right now, but I don’t have the time. I’ll do so if you are willing to consider what I would offer you on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes, Brother Marduk, it would be wonderful if you could weigh in and explain the historical contexts of this African canon. I do not know the historical context, but it would appear at least at first that it shows that the Church of Carthage in 419 AD considered themselves to be a 100% truly autocephalous (self-headed) Church, even though they were in communion with Rome.

I am cocked and ready to concede and perhaps even re-convert if you can show me that the early Eastern Churches really only believed in one autocephalous (self-headed) Church, headed exclusively by the Pope of Rome.

Whenever you are ready!

Thank you in advance Brother Marduk!

 

[runningdude]

Was this part of another thread? I’m confused

In the Catholic point of view, the Pope would be the final “court” of appeal, because he is the head of the one church. An Eastern Church would be one “particular” church. Obviously, within the Orthodox mindset, this opinion probably doesn’t make sense.

But, if God forbid, Rome were destroyed, along with a sitting Pope, then the worldwide court would have to set about the sad task of choosing a new Bishop of Rome. It would be under terribly tragic circumstances, but new Popes have been selected over 200 times.

Incidentally, no human event, at least from a Catholic perspective, could destroy the Office of the Papacy itself, as this is sacred office was established and protected by our Lord Himself!

 

[smad0142]

Just a musing for the OP, since Marduk is much better with Eastern history and theology than I am:

During great heresies, like Arianism, when the absolute vast majority of Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and lay faithful were in a state of heresy, what would happen to the lay person who was stuck under a Bishop who was a heretic? Furthermore lets say this Bishop excommunicated the man because he was not an Arian, and that Bishop’s metropolitan confirmed this excommunication. That would leave the man the choice of embracing the heresy, or doing nothing. Without the Pope having the final say this man would be barred from the Sacraments unjustly just because he could not appeal to the Pope, even though he is in communion with the Pope because all Catholics are under the Pope. If people do not have a recourse to the only See that is infallible, then the Petrine Charism is a waste.

Normally people should respect the chain of command and the hierarchy and all that, but every Catholic has a right to go to the Pastor of the Universal Chuch. He is the safeguard given to us by God Himself.

(sorry if the flow of my sentences is off; it is finals week and I am beat )

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

An Eastern Church, if it is a Church in it’s own right, the final appeal for cases should be the primary authority of that Church, whether it be the Patriarch, the Archbishop, or a synod of bishops. But, as I see it, it should not be the Pope. Even if the Pope is seen as head of the universal church and the Church is in communion with Rome, Rome is not the same Church and if anyone were to “go over the head” of their own churches authority for an appeal to Rome they should not be allowed to do so.

Marduk will correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you’re half right: members of an eastern Church should not “go over the head” of their own churches by appealing to Rome. That would be improper, and intervention from the Holy See in that case would be an abuse of papal power.

Ultimately, however, I think you’re half wrong, too: if necessary - if all the local resources of that sui iuris church have been exhausted, and if appeal to the Supreme Pontiff should then become necessary and justified - then yes, they could appeal to the pope, who has the full authority required to step in.

My question leads to just how “high” is the Pope in the “High Petrine view” of the Church.

Well, not every “High Petrine” view necessarily includes universal papal jurisdiction. Pretty sure a “High Petrine” view is simply the view that acknowledges that head bishops have true, ordinary, immediate, and plenary jurisdiction in their areas (whether that is a metropolitan see, patriarchate, whatever). The Oriental Orthodox have a High Petrine view but they obviously don’t think there is any head bishop with universal primacy.

The Catholic view is therefore not the only “High Petrine” one. It’s simply the particular High Petrine view which says, “Hey, one of these head bishops (the pope) actually happens to have universal jurisdiction over the entire Catholic Church.”

Is, for example, his confirmation of an Ecumenical Counsel an absolute essential, or is it really more like an honorary respectful gesture. Was the 2nd Ecumenical Counsel of any less authority in the East prior to the day that the Pope finally confirmed it? Could it not be so that such a counsel just didn’t call it “Ecumenical” until the Pope confirmed it only out of respect for the Pope and the counsel really had no less authority prior to the Popes confirmation?

I don’t know, so I’ll have to defer. My instinct is to say that papal confirmation of an ecumenical council is truly essential… but my instincts are Latin, so I defer to others like Marduk whose traditions are not burdened with over a millennium of Rome vs. Byzantine baggage.

What if a nuclear bomb completely destroyed Rome and the papacy (God forbid!), couldn’t the Church start honoring some other bishop as first among equals and let him have the honor of confirming an Ecumenical Counsel?

If a nuclear bomb destroyed all of Rome tomorrow, that wouldn’t destroy the papacy. A successor would be chosen, and just as Benedict XVI is the 264th successor to Saint Peter and therefore the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, so this individual would become the 265th successor to Saint Peter and the Supreme Pontiff.

It wouldn’t matter that he wouldn’t be living in Rome. As I’m sure you know, there have been times in Catholic history when the pope lived elsewhere, like in Avignon. This is obviously not ideal, but the pope’s universal jurisdiction isn’t geographical in origin but is rather Petrine in origin.

If any of this can be so, the Church could continue if need be without Rome as the Pope is not so “high” as to be the only bishop able to fulfill the role of 1st hierarch of the whole Church. Or is the Pope so “high” that any Church without the Pope is “defective”.

Without Rome (geographically), yes.

Without a pope - a Supreme Pontiff and successor to Saint Peter who also happens to be the bishop of Rome (a geographical coincidence with earthly causes) - no.

Please forgive me for any errors or ignorance on my part in my response, my brother. I think I’ve represented my own church well in this reply, but if it turns out I have been mistaken, I apologize for the confusion.

I am cocked and ready to concede and perhaps even re-convert if you can show me that the early Eastern Churches really only believed in one autocephalous (self-headed) Church, headed exclusively by the Pope of Rome.

I don’t think the Catholic position is that the Catholic Church is “headed exclusively by the Pope of Rome,” to use your phrasing. The Catholic Church considers every bishop to be a successor to Christ’s Apostles and to be a true leader of the Church, with his own proper authority that no other bishop - not even the pope - possesses, and with true headship in his particular church/diocese.

The pope possesses to its fullness the highest authority in the Church (“the absolute fullness of supreme power,” in the words of Vatican I), but I think to call the Catholic Church “headed exclusively by the pope” is to imply an Absolutist Petrine view. In the High Petrine view, all the bishops in union with the pope “head” the Church.

Does that make sense?

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

If we were without a pope for a while, would the final appellate position and papal prerogatives be temporarily ceded to Alexandria and the Coptic Catholic Patriarch?

 

[fisherjmj]

One of the first Popes, Pope Sixtus, was actually a Maronite.
So the final appeal at that time would have been to a Maronite, so yes Eastern Catholics can appeal to the Vicar of Christ.

A future Pope could be an Eastern Catholic. The Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The Roman Rite is just the largest of some 23 different Rites or Churches within the Body of Christ.

God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.

 

[Vico]

John VIII,

The Catholic Churchs sui iuris are not autocephalous or atonomous as conceived of by the Orthodox, rather they have their own laws (OE 5 below); they are not an individual Church.

Orientalium Ecclesiarum 5:
“History, tradition and abundant ecclesiastical institutions bear outstanding witness to the great merit owing to the Eastern Churches by the universal Church.(5) The Sacred Council, therefore, not only accords to this ecclesiastical and spiritual heritage the high regard which is its due and rightful praise, but also unhesitatingly looks on it as the heritage of the universal Church. For this reason it solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of their venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the character of their faithful and more suited to the promotion of the good of souls.”
A Patriarch of an eastern Catholic church cannot exercise his power outside of his patriarchal territory unless nature of the matter or the common or particular law establishes otherwise (CCEO 78).

Orientalium Ecclesiarum 9 safeguards the right of the Roman Pontiff to intervene is individual cases:
“The patriarchs with their synods are the highest authority for all business of the patriarchate, including the right of establishing new eparchies and of nominating bishops of their rite within the territorial bounds of the patriarchate, without prejudice to the inalienable right of the Roman Pontiff to intervene in individual cases.”
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

CCEO TITLE 22 Recourse Against Administrative Decrees
Canon 99
What is determined concerning decrees in the canons of this title is also to be applied to all particular administrative acts which are placed by any legitimate power in the Church in the external forum outside of a trial with the exception of those issued by the Roman Pontiff or an ecumenical council.
Canon 1006
Even if it is a case of decrees which concern the eparchy of the patriarch or a decree by which the patriarch has decided recourse, recourse against administrative decrees of patriarchs is made to a special group of bishops constituted according to the norm of particular law, unless the question is deferred to the Apostolic See; against the decision of this group one is not given further recourse except by appeal to the Roman Pontiff himself.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

This is a rather hypothetical issue. It is really hard to imagine the context in which this issue would be played out.

For the first millennium of the united Church’s life, anyone could appeal to Rome and Rome could/would intervene. According to Fr. Meyendorff (+memory eternal), this only happened once, I believe in St John Chrysostom’s case.

Today, the situation for the Eastern Catholic Churches is not focused on appealing to Rome for anything, but on how to get Rome to curtail its jurisdictional influence over the internal, self-government of the EC Churches.

So this question is really completely off the boards since Rome has a firm jurisdictional grip on the EC Churches with the latter struggling to be free of it.

The fact that the Congregation for the Eastern Churches has not been completely abrogated and discarded to date is an indication of the continuing colonial view Rome has with respect to the EC Churches. That Congregation was once part of the same Vatican department that worked to convert the pagans etc.

If Rome wished to further its ecumenical vision, getting rid of that anachronism which is a real “Jonah” in its relations with Orthodoxy, would go a long way.

There is also no need for an “Eastern Rite Pope” since the EC Churches are in communion with the Pope as universal pontiff. The fact that he is also the head of the Latin Church has no impact on this. What the Latin Church does internally is of no real concern to the Eastern Churches as it has no impact on them. The same can be said of the issue of the “14 later Latin Councils” as being of true relevance only to the Latin Church. They teach the Eastern Churches nothing about what they have always believed.

Alex

 

[smad0142]

If we were without a pope for a while, would the final appellate position and papal prerogatives be temporarily ceded to Alexandria and the Coptic Catholic Patriarch?

No. Here is the thing that needs to be remembered:

The Pope and all genuine papal prerogatives are instituted by Christ. They can not devolve unto any other office, especially one that wasn’t instituted by Christ. The office of Patriarchs and Cardinasl, for example, are not given to us directly by Christ. These are man-made offices and just because they have a certain dignity does not mean they could ever subsume any part of the papal charism.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Or the Particular EC Church may just have to settle matters for itself rather than appeal to Rome.

I can’t see any contemporary EC Church losing any sleep over whether it can appeal to Rome.

The only general EC appeal to Rome would be to “leave us alone!”

Alex

 

[JohnVIII]

…this question is really completely off the boards since Rome has a firm jurisdictional grip on the EC Churches with the latter struggling to be free of it…

Just how is the EC Churches struggling to be free from Rome’s jurisdictional grip. It wouldn’t be that hard to do, they could just return to the Orthodox. I must be missing something. Don’t Eastern Catholics choose to be Eastern Catholics?

You see I think that the reason the Orthodox Churches have never called any council “Ecumenical” is because as long as the Rome exists it would dishonor Rome to exclude it from the role it has had. So, as I see it, the Orthodox still honor Rome. If Rome was no more, then it would no longer be dishonoring the role Rome has had if another major See began to exercise the role of confirming a council so that it would be called “Ecumenical”.

The pope possesses to its fullness the highest authority in the Church (“the absolute fullness of supreme power,” in the words of Vatican I), but I think to call the Catholic Church “headed exclusively by the pope” is to imply an Absolutist Petrine view…

Does that make sense?

Yes you make sense, it was I that was not clear. When I said “the Catholic Church “headed exclusively by the pope””, I didn’t mean to imply an Absolutist Petrine view. I mean first that the Pope is over all Patriarchs the same way that a Patriarch is over Metropolitan’s (and hence there really isn’t several jurisdictions, only one jurisdiction), and by “exclusive” I mean that even if the papacy no longer existed no other See could ever become 1st hierarch of this one universal jurisdiction. I would envision a High Petrine view that is not so high as one in which it would be possible for another See to assume the office of 1st hierarch over this one universal jurisdiction in the event that the Roman See no longer existed. But if it is only possible for the See of Rome (and never under any circumstances any other See) to hold this office, then if it is also possible for the See of Rome to vanish and then if it did so, then the Church is just plain out of luck.

The first and most important thing that needs to be settled is are there self-headed Churches other then the Roman Church? I don’t mean autonomous (self-legislated) Churches, but actual autocephalous (self-headed) Churches. If it is possible to appeal to Rome then it must be so that there really is only one autocephalous Church, all churches are headed by the Pope. If it isn’t possible to appeal beyond the head of your own Church, then there are other Churches that are autocephalous (self-headed) Churches other than Rome. After this issue is settled then it will be possible to spell out just how high of a high Petrine view we have.

John VIII,

The Catholic Churchs sui iuris are not autocephalous or atonomous as conceived of by the Orthodox, rather they have their own laws (OE 5 below); they are not an individual Church…

Orientalium Ecclesiarum 9 safeguards the right of the Roman Pontiff to intervene is individual cases:
“The patriarchs with their synods are the highest authority for all business of the patriarchate, including the right of establishing new eparchies and of nominating bishops of their rite within the territorial bounds of the patriarchate, without prejudice to the inalienable right of the Roman Pontiff to intervene in individual cases.”
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

“the inalienable right of the Roman Pontiff to intervene”, and you say this means that the Eastern Churches are neither autocephalous or autonomous. This would seem to imply that the concept of autocephalous Churches held by the EO are considered incorrect by Rome.

I know there are plenty of people that will say that once Rome has spoken that is the end of the matter. I’m sorry, but I’m not one of them. What I need to know is did other Churches, such as Carthage, Antioch, Ephesus, did they all believe that the Pope had an inalienable right to intervene. Of course I’m talking about the early Church. I’m not even sure Rome believed that the Pope had a right to intervene in the early times. The African canon I quoted in post #2 seems to show that Carthage didn’t think Rome had any such right in 419 AD.

I’m sorry for resorting to hypothetical’s, but it is because perhaps the reality is not what it should be. What if, instead of it being the ancient Church of Carthage that made that canon, what if one of the EC Churches of today made a canon that said, “If anyone insists on carrying an appeal to Rome, let him be ex-communicated”. Rome speaks of their inalienable right to intervene, what about a local churches inalienable right to be a Church in there own right, self-ruled & self-headed?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear John,

Don’t know about you, but I was born in the UGCC. I had relatives who suffered and died for their Catholic faith under the Soviets and for refusing to join the ROC. That’s my heritage.

I didn’t choose to be EC then, it chose me. And my entire familial, ethnocultural and social context is UGCC.

Speaking for other UGCCers, our Church is the sum total of who we are not only religiously, but also culturally etc.

If it were only about religious faith, to leave it wouldn’t pose that much of a problem. But it’s not and so it poses a great problem. (As happened years ago, when UGCCers in Canada left to create the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada, many went along because that is where their community as a whole was headed. 90% of UOCCers today are descendants of those UGCCers).

So your point is, from my view, couched in a North American context that understands religion as a separate sphere from others. It doesn’t apply to those Eastern Catholic Churches were cultural identity and the like form an integral part of their overall religious experience.

Those EC Churches that begin to adapt to North American mainstream culture, however, can and do see its members becoming Orthodox.

Alex

 

[JohnVIII]

Dear John,

Don’t know about you, but I was born in the UGCC. I had relatives who suffered and died for their Catholic faith under the Soviets and for refusing to join the ROC. That’s my heritage.

I didn’t choose to be EC then, it chose me. And my entire familial, ethnocultural and social context is UGCC.

Speaking for other UGCCers, our Church is the sum total of who we are not only religiously, but also culturally etc.

If it were only about religious faith, to leave it wouldn’t pose that much of a problem. But it’s not and so it poses a great problem. (As happened years ago, when UGCCers in Canada left to create the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada, many went along because that is where their community as a whole was headed. 90% of UOCCers today are descendants of those UGCCers).

So your point is, from my view, couched in a North American context that understands religion as a separate sphere from others. It doesn’t apply to those Eastern Catholic Churches were cultural identity and the like form an integral part of their overall religious experience.

Those EC Churches that begin to adapt to North American mainstream culture, however, can and do see its members becoming Orthodox.

Alex

I understand and perhaps I should apologize. You do understand my context but I have never seen things from a perspective or context such as yours. I am sorry. I love the Russian Church, but if I experienced it from your perspective I might hate it.

May I ask you, if union happened between Rome and Russia, and a product of this union was that the Ukraine was united, by force, into one Church out of both the Catholic and the Orthodox, the result being technically Catholic, but for all intensive purposes it would be practically speaking Russian Orthodox, with very little chance of ever appealing any matter that might come up to Rome - how would you feel about that arrangement?

 

[Vico]

Just how is the EC Churches struggling to be free from Rome’s jurisdictional grip. It wouldn’t be that hard to do, they could just return to the Orthodox. I must be missing something. Don’t Eastern Catholics choose to be Eastern Catholics?

You see I think that the reason the Orthodox Churches have never called any council “Ecumenical” is because as long as the Rome exists it would dishonor Rome to exclude it from the role it has had. So, as I see it, the Orthodox still honor Rome. If Rome was no more, then it would no longer be dishonoring the role Rome has had if another major See began to exercise the role of confirming a council so that it would be called “Ecumenical”.

Yes you make sense, it was I that was not clear. When I said “the Catholic Church “headed exclusively by the pope””, I didn’t mean to imply an Absolutist Petrine view. I mean first that the Pope is over all Patriarchs the same way that a Patriarch is over Metropolitan’s (and hence there really isn’t several jurisdictions, only one jurisdiction), and by “exclusive” I mean that even if the papacy no longer existed no other See could ever become 1st hierarch of this one universal jurisdiction. I would envision a High Petrine view that is not so high as one in which it would be possible for another See to assume the office of 1st hierarch over this one universal jurisdiction in the event that the Roman See no longer existed. But if it is only possible for the See of Rome (and never under any circumstances any other See) to hold this office, then if it is also possible for the See of Rome to vanish and then if it did so, then the Church is just plain out of luck.

The first and most important thing that needs to be settled is are there self-headed Churches other then the Roman Church? I don’t mean autonomous (self-legislated) Churches, but actual autocephalous (self-headed) Churches. If it is possible to appeal to Rome then it must be so that there really is only one autocephalous Church, all churches are headed by the Pope. If it isn’t possible to appeal beyond the head of your own Church, then there are other Churches that are autocephalous (self-headed) Churches other than Rome. After this issue is settled then it will be possible to spell out just how high of a high Petrine view we have.

“the inalienable right of the Roman Pontiff to intervene”, and you say this means that the Eastern Churches are neither autocephalous or autonomous. This would seem to imply that the concept of autocephalous Churches held by the EO are considered incorrect by Rome.

I know there are plenty of people that will say that once Rome has spoken that is the end of the matter. I’m sorry, but I’m not one of them. What I need to know is did other Churches, such as Carthage, Antioch, Ephesus, did they all believe that the Pope had an inalienable right to intervene. Of course I’m talking about the early Church. I’m not even sure Rome believed that the Pope had a right to intervene in the early times. The African canon I quoted in post #2 seems to show that Carthage didn’t think Rome had any such right in 419 AD.

I’m sorry for resorting to hypothetical’s, but it is because perhaps the reality is not what it should be. What if, instead of it being the ancient Church of Carthage that made that canon, what if one of the EC Churches of today made a canon that said, “If anyone insists on carrying an appeal to Rome, let him be ex-communicated”. Rome speaks of their inalienable right to intervene, what about a local churches inalienable right to be a Church in there own right, self-ruled & self-headed?

I am only referring to the current situation and what is shown in the canon law: the Orthodox do not accept that the Supreme Pontiff may intervene with the Orthodox churches, the eastern Catholics do accept that the Supreme Pontiff may intervene with the eastern Catholic churches.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I understand and perhaps I should apologize. You do understand my context but I have never seen things from a perspective or context such as yours. I am sorry. I love the Russian Church, but if I experienced it from your perspective I might hate it.

May I ask you, if union happened between Rome and Russia, and a product of this union was that the Ukraine was united, by force, into one Church out of both the Catholic and the Orthodox, the result being technically Catholic, but for all intensive purposes it would be practically speaking Russian Orthodox, with very little chance of ever appealing any matter that might come up to Rome - how would you feel about that arrangement?

Dear John,

No need to apologise, sir, we are having what is for me a deeply satisfying discussion!

And I don’t hate the ROC. When it was controlled by the Soviets, it had no choice and it suffered more martyrdom than any other Church under the USSR. In fact, the Russian Church is the “Daughter” Church of Kiev even though the MP would see itself as having inherited this right from Kiev itself - but that means that Kiev is still the origin of that Apostolic authority that justifies the MP’s existence.

The term “Russian Orthodox” in English means to my ears “Muscovite Orthodox” the terms “Russian” and “Rus’” being confused in the contemporary English transliteration.

The Church of Kiev was the “Rus’ Orthodox Church” from the beginning. The term “Ukraine” was the name the people of the land called themselves by, as indicated in the Chronicles beginning in 1169. The people understood “Ukraine” as meaning not “borderland” or “Okrayini” but “Ukrayina” meaning “land cut out.” In other words, land that is yours because you took it by force from your enemies who took it from you in the first place. The term “Rus’” was an administrative term for the empire of Saint Vladimir/Volodymyr of Kiev. So “Rus’ Orthodox Church” was an appropriate title for the Church of Kiev that was under the protection of the monarchy there.

It was only at Tsar Peter I’s time that the term “Rus”" became normative for what was formerly called “Muscovy” or “Muscovite.” Peter, under the influence of his Ukrainian advisors, ordered the name-change.

To make a long story shorter, even at the time of Met. Andrew Sheptytsky, the Greek Catholic Church under him was called the “Rus’ Greek-Catholic Church.”

So no problem about a reunited Rus’ Orthodox Catholic Church.

Any attempt by either Rome to try and crush the identity and heritage of the Kievan Church of Rus’-Ukraine won’t go over well with any of us.

And I think Elder Rome has realized that we UGCCers aren’t the “old style Greek Catholics” we once were when we could be sold almost any bill of goods under the banner of ostpolitik.

Cheers!

Alex