How does the Eastern Catholics reconcile Papal Supremacy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fish90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fish90

Guest
How does this work? Do Patriarchs have some say with ordaining bishops and etc. or are they powerless?

How did the Eastern Catholics come to communion with the Pope?

Please excuse my ignorance.😃
 
fish90 said:
How does this work? Do Patriarchs have some say with ordaining bishops and etc. or are they powerless?

How did the Eastern Catholics come to communion with the Pope?
Click to expand...
As to the former, No, Patriarchs are not powerless.

As to the latter, first off, there are quite a number of Eastern Catholic Churches, each with its own unique history, but all in communion with Rome.

I can only speak to my knowledge of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, one of the largest if not largest Eastern Catholic Church. When Ukraine (or Kyivan-Rus’) as it then was became Christian in 988, there still was One Universal Church and the Schism hadn’t occurred. Tied to Constantinople, Kyiv still maintained ties with Rome and attended the Councils in Lyons, Florence, culminating in the “Union of Brest” in 1596. The history probably cannot justifiably be condensed in one post and at times it was a violent history, so I will quote from the former Apostolic Administrator of my Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy in Toronto, Bishop Danyliak.

The Ukrainian Catholic Church, as it now exists, reflects the ecclesiology of the Church as the one body of Christ, established on the rock of Peter, and submitted to the universal ministry of charity to his successors, the Popes, by the will of the Divine Founder. It embraces the union of a variety of particular Churches which continue to follow the religious, spiritual, theological, and disciplinary patrimonies inherited from early Christianity.
Following Vatican Council II the term “Local Church” has a twofold meaning. Primarily it refers to the basic Local Church, what is today called an eparchy or diocese, committed to the care of a bishop. In this primary sense the Local Church is a constituent element of the universal Church; it belongs to the very essence of the church. St… Paul addresses the local churches in Rome, Ephesus, Corinth, etc. We have inherited the canonical and theological traditions of antiquity, in the ecumenical and topical or local councils of the Church.
But the term is local and particular is also applied to the Patriarchal churches. The Ukrainian Catholic Church, sometimes called the Kievan church, after its Metropolitan See in the city of Kiev, Ukraine, is one of those patriarchal or archiepiscopal churches which enculturated the Gospel faith of Christ in the Slavic language and the liturgy of Constantinople, the seat of the Eastern Roman Empire (which lasted till 1452) and the see of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

sacredheartofjesus.ca/UkrainianChurch/ukrCathChurchHist.htm

History in Eastern Europe, what with religious division and the Mongol Invasions, makes for a complex backdrop to religious development. Bishop Danyliak’s website goes into further detail on Ukrainian Catholicism but, again, I am only speaking of the Ukrainian Catholic experience and there are many other Eastern Catholic Churches, so I’ll quote one more passage below.

God Bless. 🙂
 
The ‘baptism of Ukraine’ under Saint Volodymyr in 988 was the sanctioning and the culmination of a progressive evangelisation that had thoroughly penetrated to the roots of Rus-Ukrainian culture. Pope John Paul again alludes to this process of ‘inculturation’ of the faith, which was to mark our history very deeply. All cultures of the Slav nations owe their beginning to the work of the Brothers from Thessalonika, which conferred a capacity and cultural dignity upon the Slavonic liturgical language, which became for hundreds of years not only the ecclesiastical, but also the official and literary language … in particular of the Slavs of the Eastern rite.’
Code: 
With his conversion and baptism the Grand Prince Volodymyr gave official impetus to this movement establishing hundreds of churches, monasteries and religious institutions. Before his death in 1015, Kiev was in its glory as the city of churches. Religious life continued to develop and flourish in the Kievan capital, and to expand its missionary influence throughout the entire realm of the Grand Principate of Kiev - to the north into the duchies of Novhorod, Suzdal and Moscow; eastward, to Halych, Lviw. The Carpathians had been evangelised a century earlier, and an episcopate had been established in Peremyshl in 896 by the disciples of St. Methodius.

With the reception of Christianity, Volodymyr provided an established hierarchy for this new Church, united under the jurisdiction of the archbishop metropolitan of Kiev. Jaroslav the Wise, son and successor of Volodymyr, provided for the election of the first indigenous archbishop metropolitan, Hilarion, in 1050, establishing by this act the autonomy of the Ruthenian-Ukrainian Church in the Kievan metropolitan see, from the political and ecclesiastical influence of Byzantium.

Byzantium at this time had not yet ruptured ties with the Apostolic See of Rome. Kiev had received the Christian faith as a member of the Catholic Church. And even following the unfortunate schism of 1054, the grand princes and metropolitan archbishops of Kiev continued in communion with Rome for almost a century. The devotion of Yaropolk to the See of Peter, and the introduction in 1087, of the Feast of the Translation of the Relics of Saint Nicholas to Bari (May 9) - the feast is found only in the Slav liturizv; (the Greeks never accepted this celebration) are incontrovertible evidence of continuing ties between Kiev and Rome in this period. The Tartar incursions, and civil strife among the contending princes of Rus, cast a shadow upon the ensuing centuries, above all upon the religious picture of the Ukraine. These events obliged Metropolitan Maxim to flee to Volodymyr on the Klazma in 1299. His successors eventually established their permanent residence in Novgorod, and later in Moscow, retaining their original title of office of Archbishop Metropolitans of Kiev and all Rus. This was to prove a sorry decision for subsequent Ukrainian ecclesiastical and political history.

It is in this period that the metropolitan see of Halych was established (1141-1371). This see would be restored centuries later for the Ukrainian Catholics of Western Ukraine
sacredheartofjesus.ca/UkrainianChurch/christianFaithRusUkraine.htm

p.s. where in the original the bishop wrote “Wolodymyr”, I changed for clarity’s sake on this forum to “Volodymyr”, as is now commonly used.
 
Thank you KyivAndrew.

Can you explain the relationship between the Patriarch and the Pope? What limits their authority? How does this relate to Churches started away from the Communion with the Pope?

Thanks again and MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
 
fish90 said:
Thank you KyivAndrew.

Can you explain the relationship between the Patriarch and the Pope? What limits their authority? How does this relate to Churches started away from the Communion with the Pope?

Thanks again and MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
Click to expand...
Sure. I hope my post made sense because in reading it a second time I can see how someone unfamiliar with Ukrainian history would probably want a bio for each personage therein mentioned.

Umm. O.K. We go a bit into politics here. The Ukrainian Catholic Church’s Major Archbishop, Cardinal Husar, is proclaimed as “Patriarch” of our Church in our Liturgies even though he is not necessarily, strictly speaking, a de jure Patriarch but is one de facto. Many other Eastern Catholic sui iuris Churches have their own patriarchs, even thought their churches are smaller than ours. Why? In a simple answer: the Russian Orthodox Church. Every time the Pope has come close to formally granting our particular (pomisna) Church a Patriarchate, the Russian Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow threatens that this will end all talk of ecumenism with it and the Papal Curia desists usually (with no good reason IMHO). I think blessed Pope JP2, a fellow Slav, was quite willing to proclaim openly the head of our church a Patriarch but the Curia around him feared Moscow’s reaction and in Curia politics the Secretary of State has a strong voice too. They have been holding out in the hopes that the Moscow’s Orthodox Patriarch in the future becomes a true friend (Ostpolitik).

In any event, the Ukrainian Catholic Church was forcibly liquidated in 1946 by Stalin when the Soviets took over Western Ukraine and the faithful were forced at gunpoint to become Russian Orthodox in a nutshell. The Russian Orthodox Church has never spoken to this point to this day and still believes it has a say with respect to the Ukrainian Catholic Church (which came out of the catacombs when the Soviet Union collapsed) which is why it continually and openly states that the main obstacle to Russian Orthodox/Vatican relations is our Ukrainian Catholic Church’s very existence! Well, we’re here, and we are not going to Moscow, that’s for sure.

But I digress. The Vatican has not only never expressed objection to the use of “Patriarch” by the head of our church but back in the 70s I believe Josyp Cardinal Slipyj (who spent 18 years in the Soviet Gulag for refusing to renounce Catholicism) secured official recognition from the Pope of the Ukrainian Catholic Church’s synodal structure under the authority of our major archbishop (i.e. the Cardinal/Patriarch) who has the right to convoke synods of the Ukrainian Catholic bishops and the Council of our Church – the same rights in effect that other Eastern Catholic Patriarchs have.

It is just that God for some reason put us on the edge of the Catholic world where it bumps up against the Muscovite Orthodox Church and its ambitions in Ukraine.

For a short description of what constitutes a “Sui iuris” Church wikipedia’s entry is O.K. and it lists the Eastern Catholic Churches which have Patriarchs. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_iuris

As to your question of where the limits of Patriarchal vs. Papal authority lie, this is enumerated in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches which is the Vatican’s 1990 codification of Canon Law for the sui iuris Churches. I think the canon must be available on a Vatican site but I haven’t looked yet. 😊

I could have tried to sugarcoat some history but heck we are on a Catholic Forum and I am doing my best as a Catholic to answer another fellow Catholic.

And Merry Christmas to you too and thanks for the holiday homework! 😃

Any other questions ask away but other Ukrainian Catholic posters are more knowledgeable than I am (i.e. “Diak”). I’m just a guy.

God Bless! 🙂
 
Dear brother fish90,
fish90 said:
Can you explain the relationship between the Patriarch and the Pope? What limits their authority?
Click to expand...
The canons limit the authority of Patriarchs and Popes. I don’t have time right now, but I have written extensively on this matter in the past. If you will remind me with a PM next week, I will look for those posts and give you some links.
How does this relate to Churches started away from the Communion with the Pope?
Click to expand...
No Church that has any relevance for the Eastern Catholicism Forum was “started” away from Communion with the Pope. All the Churches used to be One, and each Church shares the blame in the disunity that has occurred in the past.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
fish90 said:
How does this work? Do Patriarchs have some say with ordaining bishops and etc. or are they powerless?

How did the Eastern Catholics come to communion with the Pope?

Please excuse my ignorance.😃
Click to expand...
Oh and I just realized in looking at another thread that maybe I should clear up one elementary point.

There are Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, which head their own Sui Iuris Churches and are fully Catholic just like Latin rite Catholics.

Then there are Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs (i.e. of Constantinople, Moscow) who are obviously not Catholic and do not recognize the Pope’s authority, whereas Eastern Catholic Patriarchs obviously do. I just realized by jumping so quick into details, it pays to establish the elementary background if one is not familiar with the area, as you initially stated Fish90. I hope this helps. So the Code of Cannons on the Eastern Churches obviously only pertains to Eastern Catholic Churches and has no effect absolutely on the Orthodox who are separate. 🙂
 
fish90 said:
This was particularly interesting.
  1. We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of
    the Holy Church.
    archeparchy.ca/documents/history/Union%20of%20Brest.pdf
Can you briefly explain how papal supremacy was reconciled?

Thanks again.
Click to expand...
Hey, you are quick to the point. How? In my Ukrainian Catholic Sunday School classes I was taught by our priests of purgatory, and believe it. 🙂

When people start going real in-depth into purgatory, I would say sometimes semantics start getting in the way. Even our Cardinal has always maintained we are united in faith as Catholics, but acknowledges that there may be need of theological clarification. That’s why the Ukrainian Catholic Church is publishing its own Catechism next year, with the Pope’s blessing. You have to also understand that with the Ukrainian Catholic Church fighting literally for its existence under the Soviet Union, with its priests and bishops in the Gulag, theological concision was not at the top of the to-do list, surviving was. The Church just came out of the catacombs 20 years ago and has just reestablished a University in Ukraine so it needs help to get back on its feet. Possibly apart from the Spanish, no other Catholic Church had as many martyrs for the faith in the 20th Century as the Ukrainian Catholic. I do hope you appreciate this.

God Bless.🙂
 
From This Rock: “The Rite Not to Be Roman”:

Today there are more than twenty Eastern Catholic churches in union with the Pope; they include the Ukrainian, Maronite, Romanian, Melkite, Chaldean, Ruthenian, Coptic, Armenian, and others. Each has its own bishops and each is considered a “particular church,” but their parishes are just as Catholic as the local St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Ignatius of Loyola parish.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that there is one universal Church, the “unique Catholic Church,” and many particular churches, each a community of Catholics who are joined by faith and the sacraments and their bishop (CCC 833). The Second Vatican Council teaches that from these individual churches comes the fullness of the one and only Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium 23).

The term “Roman Catholic Church” can be misleading (it was originally created by Anglicans, not Catholics) because in English-speaking countries it is commonly used to denote the entire Catholic Church—which ignores all the other particular churches that have their own rites and traditions.

Ultimately, true Catholicism is not found in uniform worship or liturgy—the Catholic Church has not, since its earliest days in Jerusalem, been uniform in those areas. Rather, it has been united in its common faith, doctrine, and sacraments, concretely demonstrated by communion with the pope, the bishop of Rome. While there is a proper diversity in the realm of liturgical practice, devotions, and even disciplines, there is an essential unity in doctrine and dogma.

John Paul II explained in Orientale Lumen that the Catholic Church is made up of Christians who are united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments, and the same government, formed into various groups held together by a hierarchy and forming distinct churches or rites (OL 2). He also wrote that the authentic variety within the Church does not harm its unity but “manifests it,” and each particular church “should retain its traditions whole and entire” (OL 2).

The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum) emphasized that “the Catholic Church values highly the institutions of the Eastern Churches, their liturgical rites, their ecclesiastical traditions, and their ordering of Christian life.” It further stated that the tradition found in the Eastern Catholic Churches are of “venerable antiquity” and “has come from the apostles through the Fathers and is part of the divinely revealed, undivided heritage of the Universal Church” (OE 1).

What Can They Teach Us

The Eastern Catholic Churches’ rich treasury of spirituality, practice, and culture demonstrates the true catholicity of the faith and can bring a deeper appreciation for the wonderful gift of the Church, the mystical body of Christ.

This appreciation is evident in the words of John Paul II, who wrote:
Code: 
The members of the Catholic Church of the Latin tradition must also be fully acquainted with this treasure and thus feel, with the pope, a passionate longing that the full manifestation of the Church’s catholicity be restored to the Church and to the world, expressed not by a single tradition, and still less by one community in opposition to the other; and that we too may be granted a full taste of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church, which is preserved and grows in the life of the churches of the East as in those of the West (OL 1).
All Catholics are united by common doctrines and beliefs, but they often express them in different ways. In Eastern Christianity, theology is not viewed in the scholastic manner that it has often been in the West. Theology cannot be separated from spirituality; they are intimately joined and related. For example, because of the theological emphasis on the participation of the baptized in God’s divine life, even infants are chrismated (confirmed) and receive the Holy Eucharist from baptism onward."

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0601fea4.asp
 
From APOSTOLIC LETTER ORIENTALE LUMEN
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS, CLERGY AND FAITHFUL
TO MARK THE CENTENARY OF ORIENTALIUM DIGNITAS OF POPE LEO XIII

"It has been stressed several times that the full union of the Catholic Eastern Churches with the Church of Rome which has already been achieved must not imply a diminished awareness of their own authenticity and originality. Wherever this occurred, the Second Vatican Council has urged them to rediscover their full identity, because they have “the right and the duty to govern themselves according to their own special disciplines. For these are guaranteed by ancient tradition, and seem to be better suited to the customs of their faithful and to the good of their souls.”

And conversion is also required of the Latin Church, that she may respect and fully appreciate the dignity of Eastern Christians, and accept gratefully the spiritual treasures of which the Eastern Catholic Churches are the bearers, to the benefit of the entire catholic communion; that she may show concretely, far more than in the past, how much she esteems and admires the Christian East and how essential she considers its contribution to the full realization of the Church’s universality".

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_02051995_orientale-lumen_en.html
 
From the Papal Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite:

"The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites. Between these there exists an admirable bond of union, such that the variety within the Church in no way harms its unity; rather it manifests it, for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place.
  1. These individual Churches, whether of the East or the West, although they differ somewhat among themselves in rite (to use the current phrase), that is, in liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, are, nevertheless, each as much as the others, entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman Pontiff, the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter in primacy over the universal Church. They are consequently of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations, also in respect of preaching the Gospel to the whole world (cf. Mark 16, 15) under the guidance of the Roman Pontiff."
(emphasis mine).

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

And again to reaffirm form the article in This Rock: All Catholics are united by common doctrines and beliefs, but they often express them in different ways. In Eastern Christianity, theology is not viewed in the scholastic manner that it has often been in the West

God Bless.
 
fish90 said:
Can you briefly explain how papal supremacy was reconciled?
Click to expand...
Simply put, there wasn’t any.

Papal Universal Jurisdiction was first formally defined in 1870AD. Before that it was a pious opinion of some Catholics, but not in fact a reality.

Tellingly, this has also become an issue with the Melkite church, which came into communion with Rome much later (1724AD). This has shown us that Papal Supremacy as exercised today did not exist at the time that these agreements were formulated

As Patriarch of Antioch Gregoire III so succinctly stated in 2001:
"With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it …"

And as Archbishop Lubomyr Husar of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church stated in an interview in 2004:
"If we take Uniatism in this classical way of trying to re-establish unity, we as well do not accept it. We were tricked into it. It was not the intention of our bishops at the end of the 16th century. But this was the political situation within the Polish kingdom of that time."

Probably, those Latin theological formulations which many Eastern Catholics in the diaspora accept today as de Fide are a result of the process of the Latin church ‘correcting’ the books of the subordinate rites (which is what they were at the time) and gaining some measure of control over the seminary training of priests and subsequently of the children in the parishes.

In other words, this was not a case of public assent to these dogmas previous to or at the time of union, but a long ongoing catechetical process afterward, which naturally affected the thinking of the young future priests and bishops in these rites.
 
The eastern catholic churches reconcile papal supremacy in the following way.

The head of the Syro malabar catholic church said, “What is the authority of Rome? On what basis, Rome is appointing bishops all over the world? From where it has got all the powers? In the first centuries, there was a dispute between Antioch and Rome who is head and superior?”

The head of the Syro Malankara catholic church said, “According to Antiochene tradition, Patriarch of Antioch is the head of the church and successor of Apostle Peter. His name is Ignatios. Archbishop of Changanassery presided over my election as major arch bishop. He adviced me to be sincere and faithful to Antiochene tradition and Antiochene liturgy”.
 
Hesychios said:
Simply put, there wasn’t any.

Papal Universal Jurisdiction was first formally defined in 1870AD. Before that it was a pious opinion of some Catholics, but not in fact a reality.

Tellingly, this has also become an issue with the Melkite church, which came into communion with Rome much later (1724AD). This has shown us that Papal Supremacy as exercised today did not exist at the time that these agreements were formulated

As Patriarch of Antioch Gregoire III so succinctly stated in 2001:
"With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it …"

And as Archbishop Lubomyr Husar of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church stated in an interview in 2004:
"If we take Uniatism in this classical way of trying to re-establish unity, we as well do not accept it. We were tricked into it. It was not the intention of our bishops at the end of the 16th century. But this was the political situation within the Polish kingdom of that time."

Probably, those Latin theological formulations which many Eastern Catholics in the diaspora accept today as de Fide are a result of the process of the Latin church ‘correcting’ the books of the subordinate rites (which is what they were at the time) and gaining some measure of control over the seminary training of priests and subsequently of the children in the parishes.

In other words, this was not a case of public assent to these dogmas previous to or at the time of union, but a long ongoing catechetical process afterward, which naturally affected the thinking of the young future priests and bishops in these rites.
Click to expand...
In my findings, papal superiority and papal supremacy were defined in 1870s during vatican I in order to resist the problems created to catholic church by the British empire. In that period, one fourth of the world was conquered by British. Fearing this, the many cardinals in the British ruled areas, for example Cardinal Paul Cullen from Ireland proposed this.
 
Hesychios said:
And as Archbishop Lubomyr Husar of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church stated in an interview in 2004:
“If we take Uniatism in this classical way of trying to re-establish unity, we as well do not accept it. We were tricked into it. It was not the intention of our bishops at the end of the 16th century. But this was the political situation within the Polish kingdom of that time.”
.
Click to expand...
Hesychios, I take it you cannot read Ukrainian but the translation you have linked to above is improper. Remember RISU is a site that reports on all religious denominations in Ukraine and that there can be mistakes made in translations even in the highest government circles for that matter.

Here is what Cardinal Husar said originally in Ukrainian: “– Якщо розуміти уніатизм класичним способом, як засіб нового установлення єдності, ми тим більше його не підтримуємо. Нас обманула ця концепція.” old.risu.org.ua/ukr/religion.and.society/interview/article%3b705

This is the Cardinal’s response to the question: Let’s speak of the international dialogue about the Greek Catholic Church. In Balamand (1993) the joint Catholic-Orthodox commission – to which the Greek Catholic Church was not called - on the one side has condemned Uniatism understood as a form of proselytism and on the other side has recognized the existence of the Greek Catholic Church as a church. What is your position concerning this resolution and how do you see the future today, because the international discussion was interrupted in Baltimore in 2000?

So context is everything, and the Cardinal is responding to the fact that the Vatican and the Orthodox at Balamand in 1993 (early days for the Ukrainian Church coming out of the catacombs) spoke about the Ukrainian Catholic Church without the Ukrainian Catholic Church even being allowed to speak their as to their position. The Orthodox wouldn’t have it and the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch basically stated at that Conference that Ukrainian Catholics should disappear. Cardinal Husar is objecting to “Uniatism in the classical way” which sees the Ukrainian Catholic Church as merely a way to establish unity between East and West. That is what he is objecting to in the quote you gave, not that the Pope or someone “tricked us”.

The correct translation from Ukrainian as to what he said is not that “we were tricked” but “If we understand Uniatism in the old way as a method of establishing [Church] Unity, we do not support such a conception. This conception has deluded us” That is the correct translation, NOT the one RISU’s translator made of making Cardinal Husar say “we were tricked”. RISU, like all international news sites that multilingually report news can make mistakes and I am telling you that the translation you linked to is inaccurate. That is not what the Cardinal said originally in Ukrainian. Mistakes in translating happen and, unfortunately, when you are dealing with matters religious, any little mistake in nuance or wording on historic questions can lead to Wrong Understandings, which is what the quote you linked to does unfortunately.

In the same interview, Cardinal Husar states: “But we [Ukrainian Catholics] are what we are. And one cannot tell us: Disappear! Become Latin or convert to the Orthodox confession! We wish to be Orthodox in the sense of being of this tradition. We have not always been very faithful to it. I think we have lost something on the way, which we have to regain. But we also wish to remain in communion with the Pope of Rome as the successor of Saint Peter, as the symbol of unity. We hope and we wish that all churches would be in this communion. And we consider, even if it is not through our own merit, that we could be a good example of what it means to be Catholic in the sense of being in communion with the successor of Peter and not losing in any way our religious or national identity.” old.risu.org.ua/ukr/religion.and.society/interview/article%3b705
 
Dear sister Rosemary,
rosemary2009 said:
In my findings, papal superiority and papal supremacy were defined in 1870s during vatican I in order to resist the problems created to catholic church by the British empire. In that period, one fourth of the world was conquered by British. Fearing this, the many cardinals in the British ruled areas, for example Cardinal Paul Cullen from Ireland proposed this.
Click to expand...
Your take on the cause of Vatican 1 needs correction. Papal infallibility and primacy were not even on the original agenda of Vatican 1. It was only after the sensationalist media caused such an uproar over mere rumors (that the two doctrines were going to be defined) that the Council was forced to directly address the issue.

Other opinions that the two doctrines were defined due to secular-political motives really have no basis for it.

Please read this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5124110&postcount=84
 
KyivAndrew said:
Hey, you are quick to the point. How? In my Ukrainian Catholic Sunday School classes I was taught by our priests of purgatory, and believe it. 🙂

When people start going real in-depth into purgatory, I would say sometimes semantics start getting in the way. Even our Cardinal has always maintained we are united in faith as Catholics, but acknowledges that there may be need of theological clarification. That’s why the Ukrainian Catholic Church is publishing its own Catechism next year, with the Pope’s blessing. You have to also understand that with the Ukrainian Catholic Church fighting literally for its existence under the Soviet Union, with its priests and bishops in the Gulag, theological concision was not at the top of the to-do list, surviving was. The Church just came out of the catacombs 20 years ago and has just reestablished a University in Ukraine so it needs help to get back on its feet. Possibly apart from the Spanish, no other Catholic Church had as many martyrs for the faith in the 20th Century as the Ukrainian Catholic. I do hope you appreciate this.

God Bless.🙂
Click to expand...
I did not mean to be insulting to you.

I must appreciate the martyrs of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

I apologize if I offended you and I do not mean to be to the point.
 
fish90 said:
I did not mean to be insulting to you.

I must appreciate the martyrs of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

I apologize if I offended you and I do not mean to be to the point.
Click to expand...
No. No need to apologize fish90. You were not insulting in the least. It is just that sometimes on this particular sub-forum, though one is Catholic, one feels the need to defend the Church continually sometimes from posters who are not Catholic and, instead of learning about and discussing Eastern Catholicism - which is the point of This subforum - they take runs at the Catholic Church as not being the “true” Church, which is not the purpose of the Eastern Catholicism Forum. If non-Catholic posters wish to argue with the Catholic Church, they can try that stuff on the Non-Catholic religions forum, and should not on the Eastern Catholicism Forum. I am an Eastern Catholic who wishes to discuss Eastern Catholicism on this particular forum and do not wish to have to continually justify its existence. If I wished to engage in Orthodox/Catholic polemics, I can do so and others should do so on the Non-Catholic Religions forum.

So you were not insulting in the least. 🙂

May God Bless You and don’t worry. 😉 I’ve noted from your other posts that you’re a pretty curious and are a “get-to-the-facts poster” which is the way it should be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top