Thanks Constantine. By the way I added one more paragraph after editing, since you posted this. I’m out on the East so I guess my wording is failing me now, and I’m sure I’ll wake up tomorrow thinking in some places I could have explained things better in that post.
Very well said. Bravo!
Yessir. Thanks Marduk!
You actually said it way better than I did. Its really an excellent point. If the RO backs away from any reunification just because of the UGCC, then its not true unity they are after but rather suppressing the UGCC.Thanks Constantine. By the way I added one more paragraph after editing, since you posted this. I’m out on the East so I guess my wording is failing me now, and I’m sure I’ll wake up tomorrow thinking in some places I could have explained things better in that post.
Oh. Well. Out for nite I think. God Bless All !
Yes, St. Volodymyr, Grand Prince of Kyivan-Rus (as the state was called back then), had the people of Kyivan-Rus baptized in 988 in what is today’s capital city of Ukraine (Kyiv-Kiev) and which was also then the capital of Rus’. The state he ruled over was called Kyivan-Rus’, not Muscovite-Rus; as I said before, Moscow was not on the map at this time. Kyivan-Rus’ became a Christian state in that year.
What of the matter of Saint Photios of K’yiv ? He was appointed by the patriarch of Constantinople to be Metropolitan of K’yiv, and supposedly moved his See to Moscow in the early 15th century.
I did not see them exchange the kiss of peace, I wonder if that was a deliberate omission.
Marduk, Would you be able to provide a solid objective reason behind your response, at least i can appreciate your perspctives more clearly.
No not at all. I didn’t suggest your celestial structure freeze in time. My remark only concerns the preservation of tradition. Lviv or Kyiv were never part of the Pentarchy nor were any references made to them during the great Councils. That is in no way a sign of inferiority. The Melkites for instance became a Patriachate at the time of reunion, so too was the Syriac Catholic Church, OTOH the UGCC was not.
Did you read my post #48 (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7712513&postcount=48)??) Please see if that answers your question. Pay close attention to my final paragraph.
That’s not technically true. The Eastern (Byzantine) Patriarchate of Antioch existed prior to the Melkite reunion with the Church of Rome; the Oriental Patriarchate of Antioch existed prior to the Syriac reunion with the Church of Rome, and it is to these existing Patriarchates that they have a historic and canonical connection. Rome did not MAKE the Melkites and Syriacs Patriarchal, but simply RECOGNIZED their Patriarchal status within the Catholic Church at a certain point in time. The idea that Rome did not MAKE them Patriarchal is even more relevant for the Melkite Church, which actually came back into reunion AS a Patriarchate through its Synod.
Dear Brother Marduk,Dear brother Alex,
What an awesome explanation of the situation! I was not aware of how ancient Kiev’s status as a “major archbishopric” 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!
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 “but”), 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 ain’t 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 don’t 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
).Well, I’m quite familiar with the Union of Brest - and I don’t see how we can base ecclesial policy on that alone.
Yes i did, i appreciate the answer it was very informative.
Yes i’m well aware of all you mentioned. My point was to highlight the Patriarchal nature of these Churches. I don’t know why Rome would deny the same status to the Ukrainians unless it was not there in the beginning.
I understand where you are coming from completely and do not support Rome’s tendincies towards Moscow. FWIW, I was always against self proclaimed Patriachates which were never part of the Pentarchy, so i think you have a fair assesment of what i consider authentic Patriachates. I’m not exactly sure the Patriarchal Churches requested such status from the early Councils as much as it was conferred upon them by right. Let’s not forget that Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and later on in Constantinople were important Sees in the early Church. It speaks volumes when you consider that the two Petrine Sees of Antioch and Alexandria had a special place in the founding of Christendom. Jerusalem afterall is where it all begun and finally we arrive to the “new Rome” in Constantinople. To place Moscow alongside these great cities is of no value whatsoever.
Yes i was referring to the first Seven Ecumenical Councils. As for the status of the later Councils, some were awarded an Ecumenical nature whilst others were not. Rome has said the last 14 Councils were Ecumenical, some ECC and all the EO disregard the claim. I guess the issue has been debated here before but it suffices to say that what was contained in all these “Ecumenical Councils” was inspired by the Holy Spirit as sound doctrine. Whether it applies to every Liturgical Patrimony is up to each respetive Church to decide. Surely one can’t deny that the Council of Trent purely dealt with Latin theology, however it’'s doctrines are supposed to be held by all Catholics even though one might not agree with the terminology used in the Decrees. The same principle applies to the rest.
I beleive they should.
Within the first millenium there were 4 Patriachates.
You have failed to consider something that brother Alex has very intelligently brought up - THE PRIMORDIAL NUMBER OF PATRIARCHATES ONLY NUMBERED THREE - i.e., ROME, ALEXANDRIA AND ANTIOCH.
Dear Brother Marduk,
I know you have a lighthearted way of expressing yourself, with appropriate irony, and I like that about you, I always have. So please don’t take this the wrong way, I really sympathize with the situation your church is in, and the apparent lack of parity with other churches in the communion.