S
Spirithound
Guest
Funny, I just learned this word this morning!
New Ukrainian Catholic leader to ask Pope for patriarchal status [CWN]
- Status
L
LumenGent
Guest
On what grounds is the major Archbishop seeking Patriarchal status?
If our Ukrainian brethren and for that matter the whole Catholic Church are adamant on preserving tradition, the seeking of Patriarchal status would undermine such a desire. I agree there is nothing traditional regarding Major Archepiscopal status other than a mere Roman invention, however the historical notion of a Patriachate is owing to a Church by Ecclesial right not by request.
For the sake of preserving unity and tradition, I regard the status of the Ukrainian Church what it was at the time of reunion.
If our Ukrainian brethren and for that matter the whole Catholic Church are adamant on preserving tradition, the seeking of Patriarchal status would undermine such a desire. I agree there is nothing traditional regarding Major Archepiscopal status other than a mere Roman invention, however the historical notion of a Patriachate is owing to a Church by Ecclesial right not by request.
For the sake of preserving unity and tradition, I regard the status of the Ukrainian Church what it was at the time of reunion.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother LumenGent,
Blessings,
Marduk
I think that the UGCC DESERVES patriarchal status. My only concern is how this can come about according to the norms of the first millenium Church.
Blessings,
Marduk
L
Little_Boy_Lost
Guest
How was the elevation to the Patriarchate of Bulgaria and Georgia received by the other Patriarchs of the original pentarchy? This was surely before the schism.
M
mardukm
Guest
Iām not sure about Georgia, but my research on Bulgaria indicates its patriarchal status was machinated by the secular power, which would have made it invalid according to a Trullan canon that states any ecclesiastical action forced by the secular power is invalid.
Do you have any links to the matter of the Georgian Church?
Blessings,
Marduk
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Well, when the the UGCC was acknowledged by Rome as a Major Archbishopric (which means it has all patriarchal privileges save for the title), it was declared that the Ukrainian Catholic Church ALWAYS WAS a Major Archbishopric from the very beginning. This means, therefore, that it was a Major Archbishopric at the time of the Union of Brest in 1596.
In other words, in 1596, Rome acknowledged the UGCC as a Major Archbishopric (with full patriarchal privileges save for the actual title etc.).
In fact, from the time of the Baptism of Kyivan Rusā-Ukraine into Holy Orthodoxy in 988, the Kyivan Metropolitan wore patriarchal robes and fulfilled various sacramental roles that were reserved to patriarchs. His jurisdiction during the first five centuries of the Kyivan Church was over FIVE times that of the Byzantine Empire.
So the right of Kyiv/Kiev to patriarchal status has been there since 988, also given its Apostolic Foundation by the Apostle St Andrew. It was THIS tradition that Moscow took to itself and upon which it bases ITS patriarchate which is recognized by Rome and Orthodoxy.
Given the statements on patriarchal status for EC Church in the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches, the de facto patriarchal status of the UGCCās Major Archbishopric and the fact of its development as a Particular EC Church which makes it the largest EC Church today - what possible reason could Rome give for not acknowledging the UGCC as the Patriarchate it has already declared itself to be?
This is THE issue. Romeās response to His Beatitudinence on this score will be heard by all members of the UGCC.
This time around, Romeās refusal will be widely acknowledged for what it is - Romeās continued desire to stay in bed with Moscow.
And Moscow didnāt even respect Rome in the morning . . .
Our traditional Roman Catholic friends here can preach all they want to us about the Roman Papacy.
Save your breath! We have the martyrs and confessors to prove our loyalty in advance of your apologetic sermons!
Either Rome will take this opportunity to show us that it truly IS the historic Papacy that supports those who are loyal to it.
If elder Rome wants to be with Moscow the Third Rome, we can always gather around Kyiv as our New Jerusalem.
The ball is squarely in Romeās forecourt. All I can say, judging from what Iāve been hearing, is that it better not screw up this time.
Alex
F
Formosus
Guest
So we should purposely stifle our growth by having one metropolitan governing our church from Lviv or Kyiv? Your position makes no sense as to why it matter to have our celestial structure frozen in time.
@Mardukum
How were the Ethiopian and Eritrean patriarchate created ? To my knowledge the OO did not hold an ecumenical council to do this. At least in the eastern tradition, the elevation to patriarch can be done by the patriarch the other church is dependant on jurisdictionaly. So for us, this is Rome due to Brest. As for the idea that this can only be done at an Ecumenical council , if that is the case it will never end up happening. Further, I believe VII mandates the creation of new patriarchs (I could be wrong on this, but Iāve read +Lubomyr quote that). Even if it did require a synod of the primates , I think its fair to say we deserve this honor that our church has already acquired by blood. If it only required the primates to sit in council on the matter,then Rome could do this any year at its annual synod.
L
Little_Boy_Lost
Guest
**
Dear Marduk,**
**
Orthodoxwiki has this to say about the matter:**
As part of the late Roman (Byzantine) Empire Georgian Christianity was heavily influenced by its form of practice. Initially, the churches in Georgia were part of the Apostolic See of Antioch. The Church of Georgia became autocephalous when the Patriarch of Antioch elevated the bishop of Mtskheta to the honor of Catholicos of Kastli in 466, an elevation recognized by the rest of the Church. Subsequently, the Catholicos was given the added title of Patriarch in 1010, making the title of the primate of the Georgian Church the Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia
**and Wikipedia says this: **
Georgia was in the ecclesiastical sphere of the Antioch Church.[2] The Georgian Orthodox Church became autocephalous (independent), granted by the Eastern Roman emperor Zeno (474ā491) with the consent of the patriarch of Antioch, Peter the Fuller. In 466 when the Patriarchate of Antioch elevated the Bishop of Mtskheta to the rank of Catholicos of Kartli. In the 7th century, after the schism of the Georgian Orthodox Church and the Armenian Apostolic Church, Georgia ultimately joined the Eastern Orthodoxy and has become part of the wider Eastern Orthodox Church, after which it was historically influenced by the church of the Byzantine Empire. In 1010, the Catholicos of Kartli was elevated to the honor of Patriarch. From then on, the premier hierarch of the Georgian Orthodox Church carried the official title of Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia.
**
Who elevated the churchās hierarch from Catholicos to Patriarch?**
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Today, March 31, 2011, before noon the Pope had a personal meeting with His Beatitude Sviatoslav Shevchuk, Vatican Radio informs. There are so far no details about the discussion.
risu.org.ua/ua/index/all_news/catholics/ugcc/41547/
I do hope, however, that our Ukrainian Catholic hierarchy tells its faithful exactly where the Pope stands on the question of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Patriarchate and what was discussed - positive and/or negative.
I think it would be beneficial to the laity to know if power politics is still factored into the equation by Rome or Ostpolitik.
risu.org.ua/ua/index/all_news/catholics/ugcc/41547/
I do hope, however, that our Ukrainian Catholic hierarchy tells its faithful exactly where the Pope stands on the question of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Patriarchate and what was discussed - positive and/or negative.
I think it would be beneficial to the laity to know if power politics is still factored into the equation by Rome or Ostpolitik.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Alex,
GOOD JOB! It seems to me that the Church in Ukraine should have had Patriarchal status long ago, even before its union with Rome, and it has only been Moscowās Absolutist Petrine tendencies that has prevented its administrative independence.
I do believe that the situation should be corrected. And I certainly do believe that the bishop of Rome has the authority - and obligation - to correct this situation.
But (sorry for the ābutā
), how this is to be done is the hard part, and I still retain my ambivalence on that particular matter. History shows that patriarchal status has been granted to particular Churches - but this has only been done by an existing Patriarch for members of his OWN particular Church - i.e., within his patriarchal jurisdiction or Tradition (e.g., Antioch for Georgia, Alexandria for Ethiopia, Rome for Venice, etc., etc.). Do you see the potential problem here? The fact is, Rome is not the mother Church of the Ukranians. On the patriarchal level, only Moscow would have the authority to grant autocephaly to the Ukranians - obviously aināt gonna happen.
But the Catholic Church recognizes that there an authority in the Church militant that is even higher than patriarchal authority. It is this higher, universal authority that can grant patriarchal status across particular Church boundaries/jurisdiction. We recognize and accept a universal supreme authority in three forms: (a) the papacy, (b) the Ecumenical Council, and (c) the body of bishops around the world even when dispersed when they are united on an issue.
The Ecumenical Council would admittedly be an unrealistic avenue to pursue for this matter.
The other two avenues are more practical, and it is these that I have proposed earlier in this thread. Avenue (c) can be pursued by first getting the support of patriarchs and primates from other Churches before approaching the bishop of Rome.
As far as avenue (a), we know that the Pope can exercise his supreme authority either personally or collegially. From the standard of the first millenium Church (which I assume we all want), I see that the Pope can only do this in a collegial fashion. In this regard, I proposed that the UGCC approaches the Pope, and he can call a special Synod for the determination of the matter. I did say earlier in the thread that I could not see why the Pope would call a special synod just for the matter of granting patriarchal status. But, as stated earlier in this post, the history you have just given has me convinced that such a special synod is well-deserved, for it has me thinking that the Church in Ukraine has not had patriarchal status because of an unjust motive by the Church in Moscow.
Having said all that, I must openly admit that I donāt believe the UGCC has a right to patriarchal status. I think the only Churches that have a right to patriarchal status are the ones established by the Ecumenical Councils of the first millenium. I believe the UGCC deserves patriarchal status on the basis of JUSTICE and FAIRNESS.
Blessings,
Marduk
What an awesome explanation of the situation! I was not aware of how ancient Kievās status as a āmajor archbishopricā was! Certainly, I agree that the UGCC has a right to patriarchal status (as already indicated in an earlier post in this thread and from past threads). The history you have given here has me even MORE convinced of the matter!
GOOD JOB! It seems to me that the Church in Ukraine should have had Patriarchal status long ago, even before its union with Rome, and it has only been Moscowās Absolutist Petrine tendencies that has prevented its administrative independence.I do believe that the situation should be corrected. And I certainly do believe that the bishop of Rome has the authority - and obligation - to correct this situation.
But (sorry for the ābutā
), how this is to be done is the hard part, and I still retain my ambivalence on that particular matter. History shows that patriarchal status has been granted to particular Churches - but this has only been done by an existing Patriarch for members of his OWN particular Church - i.e., within his patriarchal jurisdiction or Tradition (e.g., Antioch for Georgia, Alexandria for Ethiopia, Rome for Venice, etc., etc.). Do you see the potential problem here? The fact is, Rome is not the mother Church of the Ukranians. On the patriarchal level, only Moscow would have the authority to grant autocephaly to the Ukranians - obviously aināt gonna happen.But the Catholic Church recognizes that there an authority in the Church militant that is even higher than patriarchal authority. It is this higher, universal authority that can grant patriarchal status across particular Church boundaries/jurisdiction. We recognize and accept a universal supreme authority in three forms: (a) the papacy, (b) the Ecumenical Council, and (c) the body of bishops around the world even when dispersed when they are united on an issue.
The Ecumenical Council would admittedly be an unrealistic avenue to pursue for this matter.
The other two avenues are more practical, and it is these that I have proposed earlier in this thread. Avenue (c) can be pursued by first getting the support of patriarchs and primates from other Churches before approaching the bishop of Rome.
As far as avenue (a), we know that the Pope can exercise his supreme authority either personally or collegially. From the standard of the first millenium Church (which I assume we all want), I see that the Pope can only do this in a collegial fashion. In this regard, I proposed that the UGCC approaches the Pope, and he can call a special Synod for the determination of the matter. I did say earlier in the thread that I could not see why the Pope would call a special synod just for the matter of granting patriarchal status. But, as stated earlier in this post, the history you have just given has me convinced that such a special synod is well-deserved, for it has me thinking that the Church in Ukraine has not had patriarchal status because of an unjust motive by the Church in Moscow.
Having said all that, I must openly admit that I donāt believe the UGCC has a right to patriarchal status. I think the only Churches that have a right to patriarchal status are the ones established by the Ecumenical Councils of the first millenium. I believe the UGCC deserves patriarchal status on the basis of JUSTICE and FAIRNESS.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Formosus,
I do have a question. The administrative affairs of the Church are not my strong suit. I know of ad limina visits, but I was not aware that there was an annual synod in Rome. What is its composition? Does it include all the primates, or only certain bishops?
Blessings,
Marduk
I hope my most recent post to brother Alex has addressed (at least partly) your concerns.
I do have a question. The administrative affairs of the Church are not my strong suit. I know of ad limina visits, but I was not aware that there was an annual synod in Rome. What is its composition? Does it include all the primates, or only certain bishops?
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Little Boy Lost,
Blessings,
Marduk
Was my post to brother Alex sufficient to address your questions/concerns about my pov?
Blessings,
Marduk
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Thatās not quite true Marduk. Moscow, repeat, Moscow is not the mother Church of the Ukrainians. The Kyivan Church was in existence way before Moscow even appeared on the map!
As for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, it was jurisdictionally under the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople until the MP bought the EP off in 1686 (and this was way after the Union of Brest). The current Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople indeed visited Ukraine not too long ago to look into placing a Ukrainian Orthodox Church back under his jurisdiction as it was originally. Moscow is a latecomer and not the parent. So I am not at all sure why you bring in the MP into the subject of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church. The Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow should have nothing to do with this.
In any event, Ukrainian Catholics are Catholics. Decisions on a Patriarchate should be made between itself and Rome, and nobody else, especially the MP, though the MP keeps barging in and threatening, and it seems to work quite often.
C
ciero
Guest
Is a Patriarchate worth giving up ecumenical dealings with Moscow? I donāt know the answerā¦just want some other thoughts. Maybe the Ukrainian Church needs to put the idea of a Patriarch on hold for the good of the whole churchā¦I just donāt know.
M
mardukm
Guest
THANK YOU FOR THE CORRECTION! :bowdown2: Thereās always something new for me to learn about my Eastern brethren!
Blessings,
Marduk
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
On the other hand, should we be held hostage by Churches not in Communion with Rome? Hostage in a sense that we let them tie our hands behind our backs hoping and praying that theyāll come to the table and talk reunification, but at the same time never give what is rightfully due to Catholics who stood up to the faith amidst persecution, among other things.
Iām all for Catholic-Orthodox reunification. But we shouldnāt be afraid to do things that are right just because we fear it might offend them. In fact, I think this sends a more positive message to the rest of the other true Churches not in communion with Rome (EO, OO, ACotE) of what the Pope is willing to do for the Eastern Churches in communion with her.
Anyway, my opinion. Just be glad Iām not Pope
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
I donāt see why ecumenical dealings would be put on hold with Moscow because of the proclamation of a Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Patriarchate? Ukraine does not belong to Moscow. The point is Moscow could quite easily and if it was sincere continue ecumenical talks with Rome which Moscow itself says are not for church communion but merely to deal with secular threats against Christianity. How does Moscow proposing ways to deal with secular threats or Islam have any bearing on a Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate? Does Moscow itself not believe the UGCC can counter secularism.
Moscow has said it is merely looking for cooperation on certain moral issues with Rome in its discussions, and not that it is looking for any ecumenical communion with the Pope of Rome, according to its chief ecumenist Metropolitan Hilarion. Again, Moscow is not looking to establish any sort of ecumenical communion with Rome. It is all just questions now of how to deal with secularism. In which case, the Patriarch of Moscow has to ask himself a sincere question: is he more worried as he avers of secularism, or is he more worried about the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church - and this is a tough question for the MP for some reason. He thinks another Christian body, the UGCC, in his eyes may be a bigger threat to him and his Church than does the anti-religious culture he bemoans.
In Ukraine, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is perhaps one of the best bodies exactly to deal with the lack for human dignity and rampant immorality in a post-Soviet state and the rampant corruption engulfing Ukraine (and Russia by the way which wikileaks called a āvirtual mafia stateā). Unlike the Orthodox Church canonically recognized in Ukraine, the UGCC stays separated from the state unlike the Orthodox Church/State symphonia which can bring up all sorts of problems socially and morally if the State itself is corrupt, as it is in the Kremlin and in Ukraine. The ROC has attached its horse to these state structures: Putin the exKGB in the Kremlin, and Yanukovych the oligarchic thug in Ukraine. One may note the incredibly dehumanizing effect of having the state becoming a major cause of lack of morality in society what with its criminalization.
The fact that the MP keeps on pressing Rome that no constructive talks can take place with Rome unless the UGCC is dealt with shows to my mind that the Russian Orthodox Church leadership is more interesting in playing power politics. Five million Ukrainian Catholics in Ukraine pose no threat to the Patriarch in Moscow, imho. Letās have a Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Patriarchate. If Moscow breaks off relations on this simple question, it shows it was not really interested much in fighting along with Rome against secularism in the first place as much because the UGCC was its main worry all along, imho. Thatās just not right; nor is it very Christian in this Ukie Catholicās opinion.
The Ukrainian Catholic Church gave enough martyrs for the Church during the Soviet Union. It suffered then in the catacombs when the Vatican played Ostopolitik with the Patriarch of Moscowās Russian Orthodox Church during Soviet times. And now, years after coming out of the catacombs, it looks like it is supposed to take a back seat.
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Brother Marduk. No problems. I have learned much from your posts.
Now hid you get that one smilie.:bowdown2:
Blessings,
Andrew
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Bravo! Well said!I donāt see why ecumenical dealings would be put on hold with Moscow because of the proclamation of a Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Patriarchate? Ukraine does not belong to Moscow. The point is Moscow could quite easily and if it was sincere continue ecumenical talks with Rome which Moscow itself says are not for church communion but merely to deal with secular threats against Christianity. How does Moscow proposing ways to deal with secular threats or Islam have any bearing on a Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate? Does Moscow itself not believe the UGCC can counter secularism.
Moscow has said it is merely looking for cooperation on certain moral issues with Rome in its discussions, and not that it is looking for any ecumenical communion with the Pope of Rome. Again, Moscow is not looking to establish any sort of ecumenical communion with Rome. It is all just questions now of how to deal with secularism. In which case, the Patriarch of Moscow has to ask himself a sincere question: is he more worried as he avers of secularism, or is he more worried about the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church - and this is a tough question for the MP for some reason. He thinks another Christian body, the UGCC, in his eyes may be a bigger threat to him and his Church than does the rampant corruption and anti-religious culture he bemoans.
In Ukraine, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is perhaps one of the best bodies exactly to deal with the lack for human dignity and rampant immorality in a post-Soviet state and the rampant corruption engulfing Ukraine (and Russia). Unlike the Orthodox Church canonically recognized in Ukraine, it stays separated from the state unlike the Orthodox/State symphonia which can bring up all sorts of problems socially and morally if the State itself is corrupt, as it is in the Kremlin and in Ukraine. The ROC has attached its horse to these states. The UGCC has not and may note the incredibly dehumanizing effect of having the state becoming a major cause of lack of morality in society what with its criminalization.
The fact that the MP keeps on pressing Rome that no constructive talks can take place with Rome unless the UGCC is dealt with shows to my mind that the Russian Orthodox Church leadership is more interesting in playing power politics. Five million Ukrainian Catholics in Ukraine pose no threat to the Patriarch in Moscow, imho. Letās have a Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Patriarchate. If Moscow breaks off relations on this simple question, it shows it was not really interested much in fighting along with Rome against secularism because the UGCC was its main worry all along, imho.
- Status