Fr. Thomas Loya's Letter to Met. William

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter J,

I myself was under the impression that the US Latin bishops have some kind of say in the matter – until I said so in a conversation some weeks ago, and was told by a pretty good authority that the US Latin bishops do *not *have a say in the matter. I wish I could say more, but that’s all I know.

What exactly was the context of the conversation when you asked the question? For instance, due to the perceived extravagances in the Masses in the Latin Church, the Pope reigned it in and did not allow as much freedom on the decisions for local Liturgies (i.e., liturgies now needed to be approved by one of the Curial Congregations - Liturgiam authenticam [2001, IIRC]). Not a few Latin bishops complained of this loss of control over local Liturgy. This might have led to a general perception of an inability to have any say in matters at all, but perhaps it is only a perception not actually borne of a general set of circumstances, but rather borne of one particular circumstance (the issue with the Liturgy).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Celticnovice]

Dear brother Michael,

You provided a very gracious, and (IMO) very truthful, explanation of the matter. I would like to add just a few comments

The exception with Poland was that the Eastern Tradition had a well-established history in Poland, and there was no justification for the claim that it was a purely Latin territory. You couldn’t pull the wool over that Polish Pope’s eyes - he knew his Polish history.

The situation of Poland highlights two things:

1. The matter really does rest in the hands of the majority of the local hierarchy, and this is not a matter of “the Pope versus the Eastern Churches.”
2. Though the Curia represents papal authority, it does not always represent the Pope. A lot of these decisions inimical to the non-Latin Churches come from the Curia, not the Pope himself. When the Pope is well apprised of the situation, I sincerely believe that God will give him the Grace to do what is right not only for the Church as a whole, but for the particular Churches as well. I am reminded of the time when the Curial interests wanted to impose Latin Traditions on Copts in Egypt, and Pope Leo XIII (IIRC the name of the Pope) explictly forbade such a move by the Propaganda.

Blessings,
Marduk

There is some discussion regarding the late Pope’s mother that she may have been Ukranian and a member of the UGCC. I have seen it discussed on this forum in the past, but I don’t currently have a reference on this

 

[ByzCathCantor]

An interesting editoorial piece by Andrew Sorokowski of RISU, on the subject at hand:

Different Rules for Different Rites

 

[ByzCathCantor]

There is some discussion regarding the late Pope’s mother that she may have been Ukranian and a member of the UGCC. I have seen it discussed on this forum in the past, but I don’t currently have a reference on this

It had also been rumored that his mother might have been of Jewish ancestory. It does not appear that either have been substantiated.

As to his connection to Eastern Catholicism, he did hail from an area where he would have been exposed to Greek Catholics (Ruthenian and Ukrainian). It is reasonably certain that they were known to him.

 

[mardukm]

An interesting editoorial piece by Andrew Sorokowski of RISU, on the subject at hand:

Different Rules for Different Rites

A very fair article, though I feel it fails to properly address the issue of why many in the Latin Church have regarded or do regard married priests as “a scandal.” It’s hard to put into words.

I notice that Easterns often make light of how seriously Latins connect priesthood with the vow of celibacy. But I try to put myself in their place – I imagine how I would feel if I encountered a professed monk or a bishop who was married. I know I would be shocked, and even “scandalized.” I imagine Latins feel the same way about the priesthood.

I just think non-Latins would not be so insulted (is that the right word?) about the whole matter if we can try to imagine how we might feel in a comparable scenario.

We should educate, but also be sympathetic, IMO.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I notice that Easterns often make light of how seriously Latins connect priesthood with the vow of celibacy. But I try to put myself in their place – I imagine how I would feel if I encountered a professed monk or a bishop who was married. I know I would be shocked, and even “scandalized.” I imagine Latins feel the same way about the priesthood.

Indeed, we would see a married monk or bishop as scandalous (it was suspected we may have had one of the latter in the Ruthenian Church in days long past).

As my mother’s side of the family is devoutly Roman Catholic (as are my Godparents), I have been reared with respect for both traditions and I do try my best to do put myself in their place as well (failing at times, for certain, unworthy sinner that I am).

I also understand and truly respect, as a fellow Catholic, that this aspect of discipline is very important in the Latin Church and mindset. I do believe in many ways that Rome’s reluctance (some call it failure) to emphatically support the Eastern Catholic Churches on this point is a direct consequence of its own position on the celibate clergy. I also suspect, to your point in an earlier post, that there are indeed some influential Latin hierarchs in America who continue to quietly lobby against permitting greater latitude here in the U.S. - Cardinal Sandri’s comment did not come out of nowhere.

As for your question regarding my own bishops, I would only say that as we were the first and most forcibly whipped, the Ruthenians would be relutant to move first. They will wait until the UGCC or Melkites break ground in reforging the tradition here.

We should educate, but also be sympathetic, IMO.

I completely agree, but do confess that it is difficult at times to accept what sometimes comes as chastisement on this subject.

 

[Diak]

Just keep doing it as often as they feel necessary, or do like the Ukrainians used to do and train the married or engaged men at Ss Cyril and Methodios seminary and then send the to Europe for ordination.

??? We have St. Josaphat’s Seminary in D.C. and Holy Spirit in Ottawa, Ontario for the UGCC. Married men have been through both places and ordained for years. The married parochial clergy in my Eparchy are about 2/3 of our priests. Many of the recent “imports” are because seminaries are full in Ukraine.

I’m well under 50 and I remember a group of married Eastern Catholic priests being suspended following their ordination by Bishop Isidore Boretsky in Canada. This was just about 20 years ago that this happened, and their crime? Being married. It seems to me that something is wrong when a True Sister Church must justify exercising her own proper traditions in the wake of having been told categorically by Pope and Council that they were to return to their proper traditions.

While it is true that the unfortunate episode you mentioned earlier in Canada occurred in the 70s, those priests that remained Greek Catholic had their suspensions later overturned (the UGCC never recognized those “suspensions” anyway and most of them continued to funcion as priests). Bishop +Isidore himself outlasted attempts by Rome to replace him without the election of the Synod. Those priests include some wonderful pastors like Fr. Terry Lozynsky who was at St. Demetrius in Toronto for many years, and Archpriest Roman Galadza.

He bypasses his own bishop,

This is my greatest criticism, and not the letter itself. Every priest and deacon knows that he needs the blessing of his bishop for serious endeavors, certainly a letter that may reach national or international prominence. I actually don’t see at all what the turmoil is about. Either do it (ordain) or not. Nothing changes with this letter. As the Melkites and UGCC proved when they outlasted the backlash from the 70s, it is possible.

 

[Hesychios]

There is some discussion regarding the late Pope’s mother that she may have been Ukranian and a member of the UGCC. I have seen it discussed on this forum in the past, but I don’t currently have a reference on this

He called her a ‘Rusin’, and she was probably a Lemko. It is not clear that Lemkos all want to be considered Ukrainian, but it seems like most Ukrainians certainly do.

The Lemko-Rusyn community is split between Orthodox and non-Orthodox, and many were expelled from Poland after World War II.

Many members of the ‘UGCC’ within Poland are not actually Ukrainian. Like the Orthodox in Poland quite a few are actually Bielorussian (and some are actually Poles or of mixed descent). Then of course there are the Rusyn …

Which brings me back to an old thought: The UGCC needs to drop the name Ukrainian and identify itself with the entire Kiev tradition. It should have a multi-national ‘home territory’ in the same way the Melkites and Maronites do. They should not say ‘we are Ukrainian Catholics’, they should say something like ‘we are Kievan Catholics’ and embrace the entire tradition of the synod which met at Brest [Brześć]. Their ‘home territory’, if it cannot be the whole world, certainly must include Poland, Lithuania and Belarus. As long as they continue to see themselves only as a Ukrainian phenomenon they will be held back.

But that will not change, they will continue to see themselves as Ukrainian first, so they will probably continue to be held back. Pope John Paul II is not around to protect their interests.

 

[Diak]

Which brings me back to an old thought: The UGCC needs to drop the name Ukrainian and identify itself with the entire Kiev tradition. It should have a multi-national ‘home territory’ in the same way the Melkites and Maronites do. They should not say ‘we are Ukrainian Catholics’, they should say something like ‘we are Kievan Catholics’ and embrace the entire tradition of the synod which met at Brest [Brześć]. Their ‘home territory’, if it cannot be the whole world, certainly must include Poland, Lithuania and Belarus. As long as they continue to see themselves only as a Ukrainian phenomenon they will be held back.

But that will not change, they will continue to see themselves as Ukrainian first, so they will probably continue to be held back. Pope John Paul II is not around to protect their interests.

Does “Russian” in ROCOR “hold them back” from growth and mission activity? While I don’t completely disagree (Bishop +Basil Losten proposed “Kyivan Catholic Church” at a past Synod) I think this has been overused usually by those outside of the UGCC. With arguably one of the most dynamic leaders in Christendom with our Patriarch +Sviatoslav, I am less worried about the “rose by any other name” argument as we move forward.

 

[Hesychios]

Does “Russian” in ROCOR “hold them back” from growth and mission activity?

Well yes, I think it might, but that is not actually a great comparison.

I was not speaking of mission activity so much in this instance, as reclaiming it’s home territory. Which BTW I feel will help it gain approval from Rome for a patriarchate.

 

[Diak]

What is ironic is that if you subtract out the married UGCC priests, there are more Latin priests in the US through the Pastoral Provision for former Anglicans and Lutherans than the rest of the non-UGCC Eastern Catholics combined.

I am still not convinced that this isn’t a bit of a knee-jerk, and that the Cardinal wasn’t referring to the profound recommendations of Orientale Lumen which strongly exhorts the revitalization of Eastern monastic communities. Celibacy embraced “for the kingdom” has always been praiseworthy.

 

[Vico]

According to Sacred Oriental Congregation, Prot. No. 572-30, Rome, July 23, 1934, that it was the rule (for marriage of priests) since 1890, and that the 1596 agreement (Union of Brest) was “to recognize and guarantee the ritual traditions of the Ruthenians”.
“that Greek Ruthenian priests who desire to betake themselves to the United States of America and to remain there must be celibates.”
You can read that here: stlouis.byzcath.org/links.htm

Below is a decree referring to Cum Data Fuerit from 1940, from AAS, and the second decree was issued to allow Polish Latin priests transfer to the Ruthenian Catholic Church. Note the additional decade term: “mutatis vel additis, illud ad aliud decennium confirmare statuit.” SACRA CONGREGATIO PRO ECCLESIA ORIENTALI

i
DECRETUM
PRO SPIRITUALI ADMINISTRATIONE ORDINARIATUUM GRAECO-RUTHENORUM IN
FOEDERATIS CIVITATIBUS AMERICAE SEPTEMTRIONALIS.

Per Decretum « Cum data fuerit », die 1 m. Martii a. 1929, a S. Congregatione pro Ecclesia Orientali datum, spirituali administrationi Ordinariatuum G-raeco-Ruthenorum in Foederatis Civitatibus Americae Septemtrionalis provisum fuit ad decennium. Cum vero, omnibus perspectis, decennali experientia compertum sit huiusmodi decretum vitae religiosae fidelium illarum regionum valde profuisse, S. haec Congregatio, praehabitis votis Excmorum P. D. Hamleti Ioannis Cicognani, Archiepiscopi tit. Laodicensis in Phrygia, in iisdem Foederatis Americae Septemtrionalis Civitatibus Delegati Apostolici, P. D. Basilii Takacs, Episcopi tit. Zeliteni ac Apostolici Exarchae pro Ruthenis e Podcarpathia, nec non P. D. Constantini Bohacewskyj, Episcopi tit. Amiseni ac Apostolici Exarchae pro Ruthenis e Galitia, paucis, quae sequuntur, mutatis vel additis, illud ad aliud decennium confirmare statuit.

Art. 15. - Omnes rectores paroeciarum et missionum graeco-ruthenarum in Foederatis Civitatibus nominantur per Decretum proprii Ordinarii graeco-rutheni ritus, excluso quovis laicorum interventu. Iidem amovibiles sunt (ad nutum Ordinariorum, graeco-rutheni ritus. Amoveri autem non poterunt alisque causis gravibus et iustis).

Art. 39. - (Matrimonia tum inter fideles graeco-ruthenos, tum inter
fideles mixti ritus, servata forma decreti « Ne temere » contrahi debent, ac proinde in ritu mulieris a parocho mulieris benedicenda sunt). Quod si iusta causa adsit, poterunt nuptiae celebrari in ritu viri, de iudicio et de consensu Ordinarii loci.

Quae omnia, in Audientia diei 23 mensis Novembris a. 1910, referente infrascripto Cardinali a secretis, Ssmus D. N. Pius div. Prov. Pp. XII probavit ac rata habuit, simul iubens per Decretum S. C. pro Ecclesia Orientali publici iuris fieri.

Contrariis quibuslibet minime obfuturis.

Datum Romae, ex Aedibus S. Congregationis pro Ecclesia Orientali, die 23 mensis Novembris a. 1940.

E. Card. TISSERANT, a Secretis.
L. © S.
I. Cesarmi, Adsessor.

ii
DECRETUM
FACULTAS CONCEDENDI TRANSITUM AD ALIUM RITUM DEINCEPS UNI S. SEDI RESERVATUR.

Quo firmior teneatur disciplina de cuiusvis fidelis ad nativum ritum pertinentia, Ssmus D. N. Pius div. Prov. Pp. XII, in Audientia diei 23 mensis Novembris anno 1940, referente infrascripto Cardinali a secretis, tatuere dignatus est facultatem transeundi ab uno ad alium ritum a S. Sede tantum esse concedendam.

Cessat igitur facultas qua fruebantur Nuntii ac Delegati Apostolici ex Decreto « Nemini licere », die 6 mensis Decembris, anno 1928 dato (Cfr. A. A. S., 1928, p. 416), atque huic S. Congregationi directe reservatur iudicium de iis omnibus quae referuntur ad transitum ab uno ad alium ritum, sive de clericis sive de fidelibus agatur.

Contrariis quibuslibet minime obfuturis.

Datum Romae, ex Aedibus S. Congregationis pro Ecclesia Orientali, die 23 mensis Novembris anno 1940.

L. © S.
E. Card. TISSERANT, a Secretis.
I. Cesarmi, Adsessor.

 

[Peter_J]

What is ironic is that if you subtract out the married UGCC priests, there are more Latin priests in the US through the Pastoral Provision for former Anglicans and Lutherans than the rest of the non-UGCC Eastern Catholics combined.

That is a pretty striking statistic.