New Patriarch for the UGCC!

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Alex:

I think the forwarding of 3 names happens only when the Pope chooses 1 among 3 persons recommended to be appointed a bishop in the diaspora.

On the other hand, the election of a Major Archbishop involves only one person to be confirmed by the Pope, as provided for in the current CCEO.

You are right sir! (You are always right . . . doesn’t that get tiresome for you after a while? ).

My point is simply that if Roman relations with the UGCC ever gets to the point when the Patriarchal Synod can appoint its own bishops for anywhere and its Patriarch (come on, say “PATRIARCH” - I know you can do it! ) and then simply let Rome and the world know, then that would be the way . . . things should be!

We haven’t elected a patriarch that has been disloyal to Rome yet! And the bishops the synod appoints have been very grounded in the Catechism!

Even our dear friend, Seamus, who is a Traditionalist regards the head of the UGCC as a patriarch! (Ad Multos Annos, Seamus!)

Also, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE had a page on this on its website www.orthodox.org.ua and it even referred to the UGCC cathedral in Kyiv as the “patriarchal sobor” in its news write-up and had a representative there as well.

(Many Years to His Beatitude, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kyiv!!).

It’s just a feel good week . . .

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Both of these churches use the Ruthenian recension.

The singing is different depending on the region one is in (i.e. Galician, Volynian, Bukovinian and Kyivan).

Although the Rite is the Ruthenian Recension, there are sub-ritual differences (as can be seen in a number of parishes here in Toronto where the majority of the founding parishioners came from this or that region of Da YOO-Crane).

It is interesting to note, some kidding aside, that the new Patriarch’s doctoral dissertation was on Paul Evdokimov (Eastern enough?). He is just young enough that he doesn’t have any particular “Axios” to grind on any issue which is why everyone appears to be quite comfortable with him. And that is a good thing!

Alex

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Amadeus,

I think the forwarding of 3 names happens only when the Pope chooses 1 among 3 persons recommended to be appointed a bishop in the diaspora.

Clarification: The Pope gets involved ONLY IF the newly elected ordinary of the eparchy is not yet a bishop. IOW, if the newly elected ordinary is ALREADY a bishop, the Pope, apart from being informed, is not involved at all (i.e., promotion of an auxiliary or co-adjutor bishop, or if the bishop is transferred from another See by his Synod).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

I just have a question for my own understanding.

I understand that there are two recessions in use here, the Ruthenian and the Ukrainian, am I correct in this understanding?

On a side note, I could see some people welcoming a move like this as it would most likely do away with the RDL.

The Byzantine Churches asked for help from the Vatican in defining the recensions back in the 1940s. One Recensio Ruthena which removes Polonisms and Latinizations back until the time of Metropolitan Izydor of Kiev (1436-1458 A.D.) (using Slavonic), was published. Nobody has adopted it completely yet. Since there are different jurisdictions, there will be variations.

There is also another recension *Recensio Vulgata *for Russian, Belorussian, Bulgarian, Croat, and non-Ruthenian Ukrainians.

And others too; there are different rubrics and languages for the various Oriental Churches:

I.-Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali Di Rito Bizantino
V51 A) In Lingua Greca
B) In Lingua Slava Ecclesiastica
V52 1. Recensio Vulgata (Pro Russis, Bulgaris, Serbis)
V53 2. Recensio Ruthena (Pro Ucrainis Et Ruthenis)
V53 3. Pro Utraque Recensione
V54 C) In Lingua Rumena
V55 Ii. Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali Di Rito Alessandrino-Copto
V56 Iii. Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali Di Rito Alessandrino-Etiopico
V57 Iv. Edizione Romana Dei Rituali Etiopici
V58 V. Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali Di Rito Siro-Orientale O Caldeo
V59 Varia
V60 Vi. Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali In Lingua Russa
V61 Vii. Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali Di Rito Melkita

See:
vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/lev/documents/varie.html

patronagechurch.com/Liturgikon%20E&S/The%20Liturgikon.htm

 

[Aramis]

I was told by a Melkite once that the two jurisdictions were separated in America in order to prevent an individual Eastern sui juris Church from becoming more populous than the Latins in Pennsylvania, which according to some silly decision of one of the Councils of Baltimore would have prevented the Latins from having a territorial archdiocese.

Anybody know if there’s any truth behind this, or what he might have been talking about?

When the EC Exarchates were initially established for the US & Canada, the US Ruthenians were to be placed under the canonical care of the Ukrainian Church, which was nominally to be in charge of the Exarchate. It was split off by mutual request… The Ruthenian communities had distinct ethnic communities, and distinct praxis. And which of the others were canonically ascribed to their care also was split. The Ruthenians got most of them in the US, and the Ukrainians in Canada (including Ruthenians).

Bothe are (now distinct) uses of the Ruthenian Recension of the Slavo-byzantine Tradition. Most of the others are not… The Slovaks have their own Sui Iuris Church… but in the US, they are under the Ruthenian bishops, and in Canada, under the Ukrainian. Both have a tradition of Diaconal forms of paraliturgies.