Is the UGCC head Patriarch Sviatoslav or Major Archbishop Sviatoslav?

[UncleBill]

You can call him a tomato…doesn’t make him a tomato though.

 

[Formosus]

Rome has made it clear that they will not be naming anyone Patriarch to Sees that do not have the Patriarchal designation from Apostolic times. Don’t hold your breath for the UGCC to be officially granted a Patriarch.

Where have they made that clear? Since that sentiment runs counter to the Second Vatican Council

1. Seeing that the patriarchal office in the Eastern Church is a traditional form of government, the Sacred Ecumenical Council ardently desires that new patriarchates should be erected where there is need, to be established either by an ecumenical council or by the Roman Pontiff.(13)

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

The VII document makes no stipulation that a See need to have been patriarchal from “Apostolic times.”

 

[Peter_J]

Where have they made that clear? Since that sentiment runs counter to the Second Vatican Council

1. Seeing that the patriarchal office in the Eastern Church is a traditional form of government, the Sacred Ecumenical Council ardently desires that new patriarchates should be erected where there is need, to be established either by an ecumenical council or by the Roman Pontiff.(13)

Good point, I wouldn’t have thought of that quote. (I’m not how long it’s been since I read that document, but I’m probably due to re-read it one of these days.)

It’s interesting that there have been new Major Archepiscopal churches and new Metropolital churches; and yet no new Patriarchal churches, or new sui iuris churches.

 

[Nestor_kea]

Where have they made that clear? Since that sentiment runs counter to the Second Vatican Council

1. Seeing that the patriarchal office in the Eastern Church is a traditional form of government, the Sacred Ecumenical Council ardently desires that new patriarchates should be erected where there is need, to be established either by an ecumenical council or by the Roman Pontiff.(13)

I think it is partly told in CCEO. In don’t know it exactly but in parts which have to do with patriarchs and patriarchal churches there is written something like that the authority of patriarchs “comes from” ecumenical councils, not from Pope. At least I remember it so, hopefully correctly.

And that statement can be understood in a way that in the times of Vatican II there was a lack of metropolitan sees, eparchies, major archbishops… and these facts somehow led to formulations of establishing new jurisdictions. And in hope of a great development of eastern churches speak about patriarchs.
Rome has often tendency to speak in a way “if ecumenical council can, Roman Pontiff also cans” but it is possible that in fact Rome has no intentions to create new patriarchal sees just by himself. What’s more, patriarchal churches are (at least de iure) highly independent and having wide autonomy what can be another reason not to have more. (And many patriarchal churches are really little.)

 

[Nestor_kea]

It’s interesting that there have been new Major Archepiscopal churches and new Metropolital churches; and yet no new Patriarchal churches, or new sui iuris churches.

Catholicos is lower than patriarch and if I am not mistaken, catholicoi in Seleucia-Ktesiphon, Armenia and Georgia were formally allowed by patriarchs because it was needed to effective functioning of (local) churches. So catholicos (major archbishop) can be established by patriarch and Pope is patriarch.

To create metropolis is in jurisdiction of patriarch or catholicos, so no problem for Pope.

Major archbishops are in practice very similar to patriarchs what could make churches satisfied with being major archeparchial (in Ukraine does not seem to be working). On the other hand, my feeling from CCEO (and also from historical possibility of patriarchs to establish catholicoi and so to “unestablish” them) is that the rights and autonomy of major archeparchial churches are more easily to be modified if someone would decide so.

 

[Peter_J]

Great posts, Nestor!

I think the thing that’s most puzzling is that there have been no new sui iuris churches, beyond the 22 that have existed since (I believe) before Vatican II.

I think it is partly told in CCEO. In don’t know it exactly but in parts which have to do with patriarchs and patriarchal churches there is written something like that the authority of patriarchs “comes from” ecumenical councils, not from Pope. At least I remember it so, hopefully correctly.

And that statement can be understood in a way that in the times of Vatican II there was a lack of metropolitan sees, eparchies, major archbishops… and these facts somehow led to formulations of establishing new jurisdictions. And in hope of a great development of eastern churches speak about patriarchs.
Rome has often tendency to speak in a way “if ecumenical council can, Roman Pontiff also cans” but it is possible that in fact Rome has no intentions to create new patriarchal sees just by himself. What’s more, patriarchal churches are (at least de iure) highly independent and having wide autonomy what can be another reason not to have more. (And many patriarchal churches are really little.)

Yes, that’s an important possibility.

It can also be noted that there are many patriarchal churches which are highly regarded by Rome, even though they’re not in full communion with Rome – for example, among the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Nestor_kea]

Great posts, Nestor!

Thanks.

I think the thing that’s most puzzling is that there have been no new sui iuris churches, beyond the 22 that have existed since (I believe) before Vatican II.

Many sui iuris churches are “one per rite” and there is (probably) no other possibility if this should be good working.

But there are many Byzantine Churches and some of them are in size of better-populated parishes and I think that’s why Roman Curia will be very careful in establishing new ones, especially if they were just parished-sized. And many metropolitan churches or metropolitan sees within eastern churches are of size of smaller diocese and so on…

On the other hand, may be in Poland, there is Ukrainian GCC but I don’t know if it is also (in praxis) church of Polish Greek Catholics or if they would prefer to have their own.

In Slovakia the name of church is “Slovak” but Rusins from Slovakia belong to this, not to Ruthenian one. And some of its bishops are politely speaking unhelpful in promulgating texts in Ruthenian language but it is out of reality to make for them Ruthenian eparchy in Slovakia (and many don’t want this, just not be slovakized).

In many states there are maybe five sui iuris churches and for believers from others there is “list” where they are advised to go.

If there would be something like “proto” sui iuris church may be there were more but as a manager I also would not be very pleased with having nearly one sui iuris eastern church per state and having still just one western church per world. If it is not good for good functioning and operating of churches, it would be maybe better to have one Greek Catholic Church for Balcans (minus Romania) and not one in Krizevci, one in Macedonia, one in Albania, one in Bulgaria, one in Greece… My feeling is that there now some many sui iuris churches because of practical reasons and my question would be opposite.

What are your candidates for new sui iuris churches?
I think I should change my mind in this issue and would like to get some “inspiration”.

It can also be noted that there are many patriarchal churches which are highly regarded by Rome, even though they’re not in full communion with Rome – for example, among the Eastern Orthodox.

Yes, but try not to highly regard Moscow and speak with some of their hierarchs and monastics.

 

[Peter_J]

Many sui iuris churches are “one per rite” and there is (probably) no other possibility if this should be good working.

But there are many Byzantine Churches and some of them are in size of better-populated parishes and I think that’s why Roman Curia will be very careful in establishing new ones, especially if they were just parished-sized. And many metropolitan churches or metropolitan sees within eastern churches are of size of smaller diocese and so on…

On the other hand, may be in Poland, there is Ukrainian GCC but I don’t know if it is also (in praxis) church of Polish Greek Catholics or if they would prefer to have their own.

In Slovakia the name of church is “Slovak” but Rusins from Slovakia belong to this, not to Ruthenian one. And some of its bishops are politely speaking unhelpful in promulgating texts in Ruthenian language but it is out of reality to make for them Ruthenian eparchy in Slovakia (and many don’t want this, just not be slovakized).

In many states there are maybe five sui iuris churches and for believers from others there is “list” where they are advised to go.

If there would be something like “proto” sui iuris church may be there were more but as a manager I also would not be very pleased with having nearly one sui iuris eastern church per state and having still just one western church per world. If it is not good for good functioning and operating of churches, it would be maybe better to have one Greek Catholic Church for Balcans (minus Romania) and not one in Krizevci, one in Macedonia, one in Albania, one in Bulgaria, one in Greece… My feeling is that there now some many sui iuris churches because of practical reasons and my question would be opposite.

What are your candidates for new sui iuris churches?
I think I should change my mind in this issue and would like to get some “inspiration”.

Great post.

I think on web-discussion-forums there can be a strong tendency (or “undertow” so to speak) to absolutize having, or not having, sui iuris status. More concretely, a tendency to disregard:

• differences among sui iuris churches, such as size
• the possibility that new sui iuris churches may exist in the future
• the fact that granting (or not granting) sui iuris status has usually been Rome’s decision, with no guarantee that Rome’s motives were absolutely pure all the time

and other such considerations.

But having said that, I think it may well be as you suggest, that there simply isn’t any suitable candidate for “sui iuris” status at this time. (Possible exceptions might be the Knanaya Catholics or the Byzantine Catholics in the Czech Republic.)

I have also heard (although I can’t say for certain if this is true) that in some cases a church is in effect sui iuris, even though officially it is only a part of a sui iuris church. (I wonder if that may be the case with the Czech Republic.)

 

[Nestor_kea]

But having said that, I think it may well be as you suggest, that there simply isn’t any suitable candidate for “sui iuris” status at this time. (Possible exceptions might be the Knanaya Catholics or the Byzantine Catholics in the Czech Republic.)

Yes, but Knanaya sui iuris would be a mixture of Malabar and Malankara Knanayites. Or they are not of two rite? I don’t know. I for CZR… see below.

I have also heard (although I can’t say for certain if this is true) that in some cases a church is in effect sui iuris, even though officially it is only a part of a sui iuris church. (I wonder if that may be the case with the Czech Republic.)

In fact there are more de facto sui iurises:

Ruthenians:
Metropolia in the USA, eparchy in the Western Ukriane, and exarchate in the CZR. All of them directly under the Pope.

Slovaks:
Metropolia in Slovakia and eparchy in Canada. Before establishing metropolia there were eparchy and exarchate in Slovakia (exarchate directly under Rome) and eparchy in Canada.

Hungarians:
eparchy and exarchate (directly under Rome)

Italo-albanians:
two eparchies and abbey

Romanians, Ukrainians and patriarchal churches are of higher rank so their siruations is a little bit different.

I think the thing that’s most puzzling is that there have been no new sui iuris churches, beyond the 22 that have existed since (I believe) before Vatican II.

There is/are new in a way.
Ruthenian, Slovak and Hungarian GCCs were one a time ago. During communists there were tendencies to assimilate Rusins and make them Ukrainians as well as to arrange councils were Greek Catholics freely diceded to be Orthodox (usually minority of clergy without bishops). For example in former Czeho-Slovakia after making GCC illegal many Greek Catholics became officially Latins (their bishops advised them), some converted and some were “catacombian”. When GCC was make legal in 1968 it was impossible to call it “Ruthenian Church” because of illegality of being Rusin. And so it was called “Slovak GCC” - it is somehow new.
It was operating in whole former Czecho-Slovakia but after split the part in Bohemia, Moravia, and Czech Silesia was put Ruthenian. I consider this to be quite wise because this church is more Slovak, Ruthenian, and Ukrainian than Czech and Moravian (however there are also natives Czechs / Moravians in it), so no “Czech GCC” or “GCC in Czech lands”. On the other hand, it would be unappropriate to have it as part of Slovak GCC after splitting.

 

[inflight]

Ruthenian, Slovak and Hungarian GCCs were one a time ago. During communists there were tendencies to assimilate Rusins and make them Ukrainians

They ARE Ukrainians historically, linguistically, ethnically culturally and anthropologically. Until Soviet “liberation” all Ukrainians in Austro-Hungarian empire and later in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania ( after 1918 Spring of Nations) were called Rusins. The change of name happened after 1939. Those are the synonyms of the same people.

 

[UncleBill]

Catholicos is lower than patriarch and if I am not mistaken, catholicoi in Seleucia-Ktesiphon, Armenia and Georgia were formally allowed by patriarchs because it was needed to effective functioning of (local) churches. So catholicos (major archbishop) can be established by patriarch and Pope is patriarch.

To create metropolis is in jurisdiction of patriarch or catholicos, so no problem for Pope.

Major archbishops are in practice very similar to patriarchs what could make churches satisfied with being major archeparchial (in Ukraine does not seem to be working). On the other hand, my feeling from CCEO (and also from historical possibility of patriarchs to establish catholicoi and so to “unestablish” them) is that the rights and autonomy of major archeparchial churches are more easily to be modified if someone would decide so.

A Catholicos is a Patriarch of a church which was outside the Roman empire. He is no lower than any other Patriarch.

 

[Nestor_kea]

They ARE Ukrainians historically, linguistically, ethnically culturally and anthropologically. Until Soviet “liberation” all Ukrainians in Austro-Hungarian empire and later in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania ( after 1918 Spring of Nations) were called Rusins. The change of name happened after 1939. Those are the synonyms of the same people.

I think this is more off-topic then discussion above and I also want to prevent from politics so I will just post what I feel I must post and will not continue if the reaction is (nearly) any. I hope I just do not understand properly what you what to tell us and this post is useless.

If you are speaking about churches, then see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Greek_Catholic_Church and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenian_Catholic_Church:
1595 - Union of Brest,
1646 - Union of Uzhorod.
…so two Unions establishing two branches of Eastern Catholicism in this region. Of course there are similarities and in many thing the liturgical patrimony is the same or nearly the same. But what would you expect from two neighbouring nations with similar languages and same Byzantine rite?

If you speak about nations / peoples, then try to persuade Ukrainians that they are Russians, Scottish people that they are Englishmen, Canadians that they are Americans, Americans that they are British, Austrians that they are Germans, Catalans that they are Spanish, Basks that they are Spanish or French, and so on. And if nothing of this has value for you, then think about fact that also splits in nations happen (Americans and British, Austrians and Germans, spread of Slavs…) but it is not this case. I have one book from a very good medievalist (not available in English) who cites a Hungarian chronicle mentioning Ruthenians in the 12th century. He has no reason to falsify history in their favor and National Archive in Budapest has absolutely no reason to fabricate false notes on this topic in such a book. I heard Rusins who knew who they are from their grandparent, who knew their name a long time ago before anyone would have to “invent” it. You could also say that there was Kyivian Rus, not Kyivian Ukraine so Ukrainians are Russians. I don’t think so at all and I would guess that many Ukraininas would argue very hardly who they are and who they are not.

 

[inflight]

I think this is more off-topic then discussion above and I also want to prevent from politics so I will just post what I feel I must post and will not continue if the reaction is (nearly) any. I hope I just do not understand properly what you what to tell us and this post is useless.

If you are speaking about churches, then see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Greek_Catholic_Church and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenian_Catholic_Church:
1595 - Union of Brest,
1646 - Union of Uzhorod.
…so two Unions establishing two branches of Eastern Catholicism in this region. Of course there are similarities and in many thing the liturgical patrimony is the same or nearly the same. But what would you expect from two neighbouring nations with similar languages and same Byzantine rite?

The Unions do not matter. There was also Florence Union before that. And some Rusyns/Ukrainians are not Uniates at all. Or not even Orthodox, for that matter - still Rusyns/Ukrainians, becasue those are the names of THE SAME people.
Different Unions happened because people were scattered in different political formations ( countries), nothing more and it does not imply anything more - still the people are the same ethnically, culturally, anthropologically and linguistically. they were simply living on the territories occupied by others and divided between them.
People living in 12 century were ALL called Ruthenians - the very same people who are now calling themselves Ukrainians - that is the same ethnic group of people and now, finally, one political nation.

Don’t get me wrong - if you want to be separate - please be( since the issue is mostly happening outside Ukraine anyway), but I will still object to your justifications ( which are false) on the ground of validity.

peace

 

[Nestor_kea]

A Catholicos is a Patriarch of a church which was outside the Roman empire. He is no lower than any other Patriarch.

Thanks for correcting. I thought that in Seleucia or Armenia it was nearly impossible for patriarch to lead the church () and that is why there was (is) office of catholicos but still of a little less honor.
(): One of reasons that they were outside the borders of the Empire.

But now I have two questions:

• When church in Mesopotamia declared independence why their catholicoi adopted also title patriarch if they are equal? I have heart reasoning that because the head of an independent church should be patriarch, not catholicos.
• Syriac (Oriental) Orthodox Church has its catholicos in India who is under the patriarch and is head of a “far jurisdiction”. This seems to me to be inconsistent with the equivalency.

Thanks for explanation.

 

[Nestor_kea]

Don’t get me wrong - if you want to be separate - please be( since the issue mostly happening outside Ukraine anyway), but I will still object to your justifications ( which are false) on the ground of validity.

peace

I am happy I was not understood offensively and that we are not going into a quarrel. Preventing quarrel was the reason for “I will better not continue”, nothing else.

All Rusins I know feel to be Rusins and definitely not Ukrainins and I have many reasons to think so. I don’t want to argue about nations 1000 ago but I think that now (and some centuries ago, too) they are two ones and so I feel it good there were two unions (and in fact, I admit, because of two rulers).

So you you don’t agree with me, I don’t agree with you, but still in peace.

God bless.

 

[inflight]

I am happy I was not understood offensively and that we are not going into a quarrel. Preventing quarrel was the reason for “I will better not continue”, nothing else.

All Rusins I know feel to be Rusins and definitely not Ukrainins and I have many reasons to think so. I don’t want to argue about nations 1000 ago but I think that now (and some centuries ago, too) they are two ones and so I feel it good there were two unions (and in fact, I admit, because of two rulers).

So you you don’t agree with me, I don’t agree with you, but still in peace.

God bless.

No quarrels
You live in the US. Those Rusins you know also live in the US ( or Canada) and can consider themselves aliens per me - they do not interfere with internal Ukrainian matters.

God bless!