- Status
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I agree with him.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I agree with him too. Let start right away by working together with our common challenges. Unity will follow naturally afterwards. The things that are common is what will unite us, and the differences we can look over. We’ll figure it out. Even if we can’t be one today, doesn’t mean we can’t act as one.
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Constantine, you may also want to note that in the link to the article by the aforesaid Russian Orthodox Metropolitan he calls our Eastern Catholic Churches “a complete failure”, but in the context of being a vehicle for unity (which we have long ago disavowed anyway). As Cardinal Husar long ago pointed out: this excuse that Ukrainian Catholics are THE reason for Moscow not engaging Rome is pretty well a lame excuse, or something to that effect. O.K. Met. Hilarion also uses a term banned on CAF to describe our Church.
In any event, I would take what this particular Russian Orthodox Metropolitan says with a heavy, heavy grain of salt, as, from what I read elsewhere by the late Venerable JPII’s biographer George Weigel, this same Russian Orthodox ecumenist astoundingly approves Stalin’s liquidation of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in 1946, the KGB enforced pseudo-synod that murdered in cold blood our bishops and clergy and sent many to the Gulag.
As here:
‘More disturbing still were remarks made in Washington in February by Metropolitan Hilarion, the Moscow patriarchate’s “external affairs” officer—Russian Orthodoxy’s chief ecumenist. Hilarion is an impressive personality in many ways: He is entirely at home in English, he displays a nice sense of humor, and his curriculum vitae includes a large number of publications and musical compositions. Yet when I asked him whether the L’viv Sobor (Council) of 1946—which forcibly reincorporated the Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine into Russian Orthodoxy, turning the Greek Catholics into the world’s largest illegal religious body—was a “theologically legitimate ecclesial act,” Hilarion unhesitatingly responded “Yes.” I then noted that serious historians describe the L’viv Sobor as an act of the Stalinist state, carried out by the NKVD (predecessor to the KGB); Hilarion responded that the “modalities” of history are always complicated. In any event, he continued, it was always legitimate for straying members of the Russian Orthodox flock (as he regarded the Ukrainian Greek Catholics) to return to their true home (i.e., Russian Orthodoxy)’
firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/03/rome-and-moscow
Some ecumenist for us. It is Lent and there is no point at least in arguing here but I believe we should know exactly what the object of this thread in Eastern Catholicism actually believes about Eastern Catholics, namely us. It also pays to know that those parts of Ukraine on which the Ukrainian Catholic Church existed before Stalin annexed them in his alliance with Hitler in 1939 never historically belonged to Tsarist Russia, nor the Soviet Union until 1939 and then 1945. (And Mr. Weigel makes a mistake here too in using the word “reincorporation” into the Russian Orthodox Church as the Church in Transcarpathia, Halychyna, even when Orthodox, never belonged to the Russian Orthodox Church or Moscow, so “reincorporation” is wrong).
A rather ironic view now that we are supposed to be celebrating the enthronement of a new Patriarch for the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.
If the subject of this thread is Rome and Moscow, and the belief that Eastern Catholics are a failure, then it doesn’t belong under Eastern Catholicism obviously but non-Catholic religions imho.
F
Formosus
Guest
I used to think Met. Hilarion was a fairly intelligent and even handed man, until I recently read his comments on the liquidation of the UGCC. Simply put, if Moscow wants to co operate with Rome, then perhaps its should decide to cooperate with us! Let us build our churches in Odessa and eastern Ukraine for our people and stop attempting to force Russian Orthodoxy on Ukrainian Greek Catholics. Then I think we can all talk about cooperation between Catholics and the Russian Orthodox.
P
Pork_Roll
Guest
I guess the good Bishop forgot about Christ’s explicit call for unity in the church. He’s just being stubborn which is a big problem for the Russian Church. they fancy themselves as “New Rome” which is silly. Kiev is the true center of the slavic churches and not Moscow, as Rome is for the universal church and not Constantinople. Without communion, we will probably not be able to work together because we take our faith more seriously than politics.
The “Uniate” churches show us the way forward: bring into the church those that want to be united and leave the others where they are. We should never expect the entire ROC to come into communion with Rome. This type of ecumenism is not realistic as history has showed us. There will always be those who refuse to enter visibly into the one true church.
The “Uniate” churches show us the way forward: bring into the church those that want to be united and leave the others where they are. We should never expect the entire ROC to come into communion with Rome. This type of ecumenism is not realistic as history has showed us. There will always be those who refuse to enter visibly into the one true church.
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Exactly! I agree with you brother. There are tens of thousands of Ukrainian Catholics throughout Ukraine, some forcibly deported there by the communists, and the Moscow Patriarchate Orthodox unbelievably in collusion with local authorities (sometimes they even are “the” authorities as they are not prohibited from government, like Moscow Orthodox Met. Ahahanfel in Odesa, whereas Ukrainian Catholic clergy cannot) prevent the Ukrainian Catholics from even building one church and there are ten thousand faithful of our faithful there alone! The protestants, the mormons, etc. meanwhile can build large churches without opposition from the same MP Orthodox authorities. This is Christian brotherhood ?
M
malphono
Guest
Sounds good to me.
That would be refreshing, but why do I have this feeling it’s not in MP’s playbook?
Let me see … 
And I have the impression that they’re less interested in forcing Russian Orthodoxy as much as they are interested in forcing Russian hegemony. Perhaps the two are the same?
B
bkovacs
Guest
Funny that you mention the new Patriarch of the UGCC. When I went to St Josephat’s UGCC in Bethlehem PA last night, to celebrate the feast of the Annunciation. The priest didn’t announce anything about the new Patriarch in his homily or after the liturgy. But did mention how the Roman Church downplays the feast of the Annunciation, and was pretty harsh about it. I know that traditional Roman Catholicism speaks much about the Annunciation, not sure about mainstream Roman Catholicism. Maybe that was the group he was referring to.
B
bkovacs
Guest
Quote: “In any event, I would take what this particular Russian Orthodox Metropolitan says with a heavy, heavy grain of salt, as, from what I read elsewhere by the late Venerable JPII’s biographer George Weigel, this same Russian Orthodox ecumenist astoundingly approves Stalin’s liquidation of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in 1946, the KGB enforced pseudo-synod that murdered in cold blood our bishops and clergy and sent many to the Gulag.”
And keep in mind that many “Orthodox” priests also died and were tortured in Stalinist Russia for their faith. Greek Catholics were not the only ones persecuted. And look how many Catholics died in Germany in WWII. If you didn’t live back in those days, you don’t know the situation. You really think the KGB and Stalin cared about anything Christian!?. They were “atheists”. Kind of like what the West is becoming now!.
And keep in mind that many “Orthodox” priests also died and were tortured in Stalinist Russia for their faith. Greek Catholics were not the only ones persecuted. And look how many Catholics died in Germany in WWII. If you didn’t live back in those days, you don’t know the situation. You really think the KGB and Stalin cared about anything Christian!?. They were “atheists”. Kind of like what the West is becoming now!.
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
If truth be told this is, unfortunately, the case in my opinion. The Patriarch of Moscow visits Ukraine and, for the last couple of years, has based his sermons on telling Ukrainians a political message: you belong to the Russkyi Mir, or Russian world. The message should be about Christ, period. Communism did enough damage in Ukraine and Russia. Next to Russia, Ukraine has the second largest Orthodox population in the world, yet the faithful there unbelievably cannot even be granted their own truly autonomous Orthodox Church, never mind even an Autocephalous one. That is why most Orthodox Ukrainians belong not to the state-supported Moscow Patriarchate ‘Ukrainian’ Orthodox Church, but the non-canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyivan Patriarchate. They want the sacraments, without political sloganeering. But the current Patriarch of Moscow began working with the Kremlin back in 1972, still during Soviet times, and the “symphonia” between the Kremlin and the Rus. Orth. Church (ROC) still sadly exists, in my humble opinion.
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
- let’s not argue too much during Lent.
B
bkovacs
Guest
Quote: “If the subject of this thread is Rome and Moscow, and the belief that Eastern Catholics are a failure”
I think that many Orthodox are also retracting that statement, considering their “Western Rite” is like puttting their foot in their mouth in regards to Eastern Catholics. Their doing the same!.
I think that many Orthodox are also retracting that statement, considering their “Western Rite” is like puttting their foot in their mouth in regards to Eastern Catholics. Their doing the same!.
M
malphono
Guest
This non-Slav, non-Byzantine understands full well that Stalin cared less about Christians of any stripe. At the same time, it is crystal clear that the Russian Orthodox suffered far less persecution than did the UGCC. Why? Whereas Soviet Union didn’t care about Christians, they did care about subservience. And they didn’t get it at all from the UGCC. They did, however, get it from MP (big surprise there, considering the number of KGB (or whatever it’s called now) agents it haS).
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I find it interesting that so many are rejecting what was said out of hand because of who said it. People who are always talking about the need for full unity rejecting the concept of a common front, something that will ultimately be necessary for unity.
Arguments about the place of Ukraine in the Church, on a subject such as this, is base nationalism at its worse, and the sort of thing Catholics are always accusing Orthodox of (by the way, the UOCMP is autonomous, and I’ll be surprised if the upcoming council doesn’t grant it autocephalous status).
As for the use of the term “uniate”, that is the term commonly used in the Orthodox Church. Sometimes it is used with disdain, most times (that I’ve heard it) it isn’t. While it is certainly in the interests of polite conversation to use the prefered term “Eastern Catholic” when talking with Eastern Catholics, it isn’t a convention you should expect when reading things by Orthodox prelates not aimed at Eastern Catholics.
While Roman treatment of Eastern Catholics has greatly improved since Vat II, we saw how they were treated before, anyone who suggests we must negotiate on the basis of that religion may as well walk away. Just because things are good now doesn’t mean much to us when the instruments of oppression are still in force - just because Rome takes a hands off approach now doesn’t mean it has to forever.
Those who think it is wrong that Orthodox don’t take into account Eastern Catholics, you need to take that up with Rome. These are discussions between Communions, we’re going to take Eastern Catholics into account as much as we expect Rome to take the Japanese Orthodox Church into account. If you feel Rome isn’t providing your view, then perhaps that’s just one more reason why we don’t want to accept Roman overlordship.
Arguments about the place of Ukraine in the Church, on a subject such as this, is base nationalism at its worse, and the sort of thing Catholics are always accusing Orthodox of (by the way, the UOCMP is autonomous, and I’ll be surprised if the upcoming council doesn’t grant it autocephalous status).
As for the use of the term “uniate”, that is the term commonly used in the Orthodox Church. Sometimes it is used with disdain, most times (that I’ve heard it) it isn’t. While it is certainly in the interests of polite conversation to use the prefered term “Eastern Catholic” when talking with Eastern Catholics, it isn’t a convention you should expect when reading things by Orthodox prelates not aimed at Eastern Catholics.
While Roman treatment of Eastern Catholics has greatly improved since Vat II, we saw how they were treated before, anyone who suggests we must negotiate on the basis of that religion may as well walk away. Just because things are good now doesn’t mean much to us when the instruments of oppression are still in force - just because Rome takes a hands off approach now doesn’t mean it has to forever.
Those who think it is wrong that Orthodox don’t take into account Eastern Catholics, you need to take that up with Rome. These are discussions between Communions, we’re going to take Eastern Catholics into account as much as we expect Rome to take the Japanese Orthodox Church into account. If you feel Rome isn’t providing your view, then perhaps that’s just one more reason why we don’t want to accept Roman overlordship.
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Well, there obviously is much the Orthodox world has to work out itself with respect to the Kremlin’s new Russian nationalism, the Church, and the Third Rome. Don’t take it from me, an Eastern Catholic, but take it from the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox world, as reported here:
"To the representatives of the Russian government, Patriarch Bartholomew stated: “The gathering together of Orthodox faithful into one flock under the leadership of a single powerful leader, who would be carrying out the agenda of a particular government, will unavoidably lead the Church into becoming nothing more than an organ of that government, and not the means by which mankind achieves salvation.”
To the Minister of the Exterior, Ivanoff, he stated the following: “The involvement of government into the decision-making process of the Church smacks of unacceptable caesarpapism. During the communist era there occurred an intolerable politicization of the Russian Church. … We hoped that things would be different after the fall of that monstrous system. However, to our dismay, we see that the current Russian government continues to unhesitatingly interfere, and, indeed, to even ‘make policy’ concerning matters that are strictly ecclesiastical.”
The Patriarch went on to ask the following question of the Metropolitan of Smolensk: “Are you telling us that the unity of Orthodoxy is a question of numbers, political strength, secular and diplomatic power?”
To the Vice President of the Parliamentary Committee, the Ecumenical Patriarch emphasized the following: “The foolish theory pertaining to a ‘3rd Rome’ is hubristic (in accordance with the ancient Greek definition of this word [having to do with overweening arrogance] ), and blasphemous. New Rome may be the first among equal Patriarchates, but she has never sought to dominate and exercise power over the other Orthodox Churches. We recognize her primacy in the stewardship of our unity, and she has performed this function humbly and absent any exercise of power.”
Finally, as reported in the To Vima article, the Ecumenical Patriarch, wanting to send a clear and unambiguous message to all Orthodox faithful everywhere, stated: “Those who speak of a 3rd Rome are totally unsuited to hold leadership positions in the Orthodox Church, because they will play a role in transforming her from a Christ-worshipping faith to a feudalistic organization based upon the exercise of raw power.”
kiev-orthodox.org/site/english/915/
Aggressive “Third Rome” Ruskyi mir nationalism is just not a problem for the world’s largest Eastern Catholic Church, the Ukrainian, it is also a grave problem to the Ecumenical Patriarch in world Orthodoxy.
"To the representatives of the Russian government, Patriarch Bartholomew stated: “The gathering together of Orthodox faithful into one flock under the leadership of a single powerful leader, who would be carrying out the agenda of a particular government, will unavoidably lead the Church into becoming nothing more than an organ of that government, and not the means by which mankind achieves salvation.”
To the Minister of the Exterior, Ivanoff, he stated the following: “The involvement of government into the decision-making process of the Church smacks of unacceptable caesarpapism. During the communist era there occurred an intolerable politicization of the Russian Church. … We hoped that things would be different after the fall of that monstrous system. However, to our dismay, we see that the current Russian government continues to unhesitatingly interfere, and, indeed, to even ‘make policy’ concerning matters that are strictly ecclesiastical.”
The Patriarch went on to ask the following question of the Metropolitan of Smolensk: “Are you telling us that the unity of Orthodoxy is a question of numbers, political strength, secular and diplomatic power?”
To the Vice President of the Parliamentary Committee, the Ecumenical Patriarch emphasized the following: “The foolish theory pertaining to a ‘3rd Rome’ is hubristic (in accordance with the ancient Greek definition of this word [having to do with overweening arrogance] ), and blasphemous. New Rome may be the first among equal Patriarchates, but she has never sought to dominate and exercise power over the other Orthodox Churches. We recognize her primacy in the stewardship of our unity, and she has performed this function humbly and absent any exercise of power.”
Finally, as reported in the To Vima article, the Ecumenical Patriarch, wanting to send a clear and unambiguous message to all Orthodox faithful everywhere, stated: “Those who speak of a 3rd Rome are totally unsuited to hold leadership positions in the Orthodox Church, because they will play a role in transforming her from a Christ-worshipping faith to a feudalistic organization based upon the exercise of raw power.”
kiev-orthodox.org/site/english/915/
Aggressive “Third Rome” Ruskyi mir nationalism is just not a problem for the world’s largest Eastern Catholic Church, the Ukrainian, it is also a grave problem to the Ecumenical Patriarch in world Orthodoxy.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I agree with you that we can hope to cooperate and collaborate now, and hope even more that this lead to a better understanding and unity. But I cannot agree with Metropolitan Hilarion.
I would be interested in his enumeration of doctrinal compromises. Sounds like polemical bologna to me. And the complete failure? Yes we understand the choice for union drove some Orthodox into a hard core anti-Catholic stance, and that current Orthodox somehow have to live with their reaction in all of its gory detail, and that may lead to such madness as the inability to see the liquidation of Greek Catholic churches with appropriate horror. But I think there have been great successes that may be measured in the lives of the saints animated by these churches and by the better understanding of the East and in the increased desire for unity with diversity that has emerged in the Catholic church. Perhaps the Western Rite Os may teach something to the ROC over time.
Is he trying to breathe life back into the Balamand agreement? If so he should be more careful. That document stipulated that “uniatism”, to the extent that it can be understood as a missionary apostolate, is no longer a viable approach. But that the “uniate” churches have every right to exist and that right is to be respected by all. Even the ROC.
This is a bit goofy. Even if we were in communion, why would there be an expectation of a common liturgy? Neither the EOs nor the Catholics have this now? Single administration system?
What does this have to so communion?
Fascinating. Apparently other Orthodox, the less “tough” who don’t walk out, see the situation differently. Great.
Got it. It’s about “branding”. The un-Catholic church. Maybe that;s why the Russian’s changed the Creed and took “Catholic” out.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
And where has anyone denied we need to work things out? We’re in the process. hopefully all the major issues will be worked out at the upcoming Council, but again I ask, what does that have to do with the idea of providing a common front on the things we agree on?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
News to me. Source?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I kinda missed that. Thats what you get for skimming instead of reading
- Status