New Ukrainian Catholic leader to ask Pope for patriarchal status [CWN]

[Alexander_Roman]

I’m being facetious . . . I’m glad this is an endearing quality about me . . .

The Union of Brest, however, doesn’t say anything about our ecclesial subjection to Rome. If anything, the Orthodox bishops who signed it (Western-looking as they already were), mostly saw only a “transfer” of patriarchal loyalties from New Rome to Elder Rome and nothing more.

This is also shown in points like purgatory - the bishops in the 33 principles of Brest affirm that they will follow the teaching of the Church in the matter, without, of course, saying which Church . . .

However, it could be validly argued that Purgatory, as a doctrine, had already permeated Orthodox theology and the Orthodox St Peter Mohyla of Kiev, Halych and all Rus’ used the term in his Catechism - even when this was removed by the Orthodox Patriarchs at Jassy.

The real subjection to Rome occurred over time, but also as a result, you are absolutely correct, of UGCC bishops allowing it to happen.

I prefer to see the present quandry as a case where Rome is caught betwixt its ost-politik with Moscow (and let’s remember that Pope John Paul II never allowed his native Poland to be subject to ost-politik) AND its affirmations that Eastern Catholics are to recover and return to their traditions, including ecclesial traditions where the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches explicitly states, if I recall correctly, that new patriarchates are to be established etc.

But I understand where Rome is coming from, ultimately. It doesn’t want to “dis” Moscow. And Moscow has affirmed that all of Ukraine belongs to its ecclesial jurisdiction, even though not politically (but they are working on that too. . .).

We maintain that 1) this is a case where the Daughter Church (Moscow) has usurped the rights of the Mother Church (Kiev) and 2) that the UGCC has a right to be in union with Rome and that a UGCC patriarchate is the business of the UGCC and Rome - and not of Moscow.

I don’t know why an EC patriarchate would dis Moscow apart from its continued desire to see the UGCC and Galicia reunified with it as the “Mother Church.”

We maintain that 1) Moscow was never our Mother Church, but Kiev and Constantinople were and are - the Kievan Metropolitans, like Mohyla, used terms like “Barbaric Muscovy” to describe our brothers to the north east . . .(they are our brothers since we can choose our friends . . .) 2) Moscow’s insistence that the UGCC is an ecclesial aberration and for justice to be done it must return to Moscow is nonsense; 3) Moscow’s insistence that the existence of the UGCC is due to external political factors and is not the wish of the members of the UGCC is religious/national hegemony at its worst (or “best” depending on how you look at it).

So although I was facetious, I don’t think I’m too far off. If Moscow can influence Rome’s policy toward the UGCC, then Moscow is, in fact, exercising influence over us… The UGCC fought against such influence only to now come under a measure of it via Rome.

So that is why I refer to Moscow as our “patriarchate” - courtesy of Rome’s eastern geo-politicians.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some of our parishes didn’t begin commemorating the MP after the Roman Pope before too long . . .

But seriously, if the Ukrainian Orthodox and Ukrainian Catholics wished to unite in a Church around the non-canonical Kyivan Patriarchate, forsaking their allegiances to all three Rome’s (Elder, New and Third), I would be open to that.

Alex

 

[ConstantineTG]

But seriously, if the Ukrainian Orthodox and Ukrainian Catholics wished to unite in a Church around the non-canonical Kyivan Patriarchate, forsaking their allegiances to all three Rome’s (Elder, New and Third), I would be open to that.

Alex

Yikes! I wouldn’t. As much as I love where I am today, I don’t think I can be in a Church that is not in communion with the heir of Peter. Though that would be good for the Ukrainian people, I agree. I hope we all could unite under the Pope.

I wonder, is the KP hoping to come into communion with the other Orthodox? What does the other Orthodox think about this, notwithstanding any pressure from the MP? Aren’t they open to coming into communion with the CC instead?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Yikes! I wouldn’t. As much as I love where I am today, I don’t think I can be in a Church that is not in communion with the heir of Peter. Though that would be good for the Ukrainian people, I agree. I hope we all could unite under the Pope.

I wonder, is the KP hoping to come into communion with the other Orthodox? What does the other Orthodox think about this, notwithstanding any pressure from the MP? Aren’t they open to coming into communion with the CC instead?

We’re not there yet! I hope we could all be in communion with the Roman Pontiff too.

All roads lead to Rome - but sometimes a cul de sac seems necessary.

As for the KP, they don’t understand why they are not “canonical.” That will have to be worked out in the Orthodox World (which some understand as the “Russky Mir” ).

Alex

 

[Hesychios]

Interesting comments, but it was what I expected.

The Union of Brest, however, doesn’t say anything about our ecclesial subjection to Rome. If anything, the Orthodox bishops who signed it (Western-looking as they already were), mostly saw only a “transfer” of patriarchal loyalties from New Rome to Elder Rome and nothing more.

Do you feel that they had the right to do this? As a daughter church, still having it’s episcopal appointments coming from Constantinople, that is.

Did they have the right to reject their own patriarch, and ‘set terms’ for association with a new one?

This is also shown in points like purgatory - the bishops in the 33 principles of Brest affirm that they will follow the teaching of the Church in the matter, without, of course, saying which Church . . .
…

The real subjection to Rome occurred over time, but also as a result, you are absolutely correct, of UGCC bishops allowing it to happen.

But why?

What is the process that turns strong independent minded bishops into, well … what ever …

How can that be prevented in the future?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Michael,

You pose serious questions and I will respond in kind (to the best of my ability!).

The then Ruthenian Orthodox Metropolia of Kiev (comprising both Ukrainians and Belarusyans - indeed, for about 400 years “Belarusyan” was how Ukrainians identified themselves) was under Poland’s control where new bishop-appointees had to be ratified by the Royal Polish Court. Of course, only those candidates who were agreeable to the Polish Court were approved. That is one source of the “Latinization” and inclination toward union with Rome among them.

One could argue that an even more salient source of the inclination to the West and Rome was the tremendous influence of the Jesuit schools in Europe where even Orthodox students studied and came under the inevitable Latin influence. We know that the Orthodox Saints of the Kievan Baroque like St Dmitri of Rostov were very connected to Western devotions e.g. Rosary, Hail Mary at each hour of the day and night, chaplets, Little Office of the Virgin Mary, Stations of the Cross and EVEN the Sacred Heart devotion (which is probably where St Nicholas Cabasilas and St Nicodemos Hagioritis got their devotion that made thenm emphasize the “Heart of Christ” in their writing).

In addition, the Ecumenical Patriarch actually “pushed” the Ruthenian Orthodox bishops into the arms of Rome by its suspicion of them for being “Latin-minded.” As we know, the EP put laymen of the Stauropeghial Brotherhoods as a kind of “overlord” over Orthodox bishops to keep watch on them as his spies to keep them in check.

The Ruthenian Bishops didn’t like that . . . by way of the short answer.

And they saw how well their Roman Catholic counterparts lived as “Princes of the Church.”

It didn’t take much convincing to get them to approach Rome, but they did insist on keeping all their traditions, including married parish clergy.

As for their right to do this, we should remember that Moscow and Constantinople were vying for full control of the Ruthenian Orthodox Metropolia of Kiev at that time. Both centres considered Kiev to be their vassal (and that is a separate, long story). The Ruthenian Orthodox bishops didn’t see it as a matter of whether they had the right to go to Rome - they went to Rome for the perceived benefits to them and because Rome was the epicentre of the civilized world. Moscow was “barbaric” and Constantinople languished under the Turks - what “right” did these two have over the Ruthenians any way, they thought?

Moscow was also Kiev’s daughter and when Kievan Rus’ received Christianity from Constantinople, it did so with St Volodymyr having five times the territory that Constantinople had. Volodymyr was considered a vassal of the Byzantine Emperor, but Vlad didn’t see it that way. He called himself “King” and adorned his regal symbolism with Byzantium emblems. The Ukrainian trident itself is composed of two inward facing “B’s” which is directly from the Byzantine coat of arms with four “B’s” which mean: “King of Kings, ruling over those who rule” in Greek. The trident’s “B’s” stand for “King of Kings” with the Cross in the middle. And Vlad took as his wife the daughter of the Emperor - all actions that showed he considered himself a King when only the Byzantine emperor could make such at the time.

The point is that enhanced Latinization followed that was begun when they were still Orthodox. After a while, all that was Orthodox and Eastern was viewed as simply “uncivilized” and “not European” but “Asian.” The Russian Church was viewed as “Barbaric Muscovy” where “only one in ten monks knew the Our Father by heart.”

The chasm was complete and the Ruthenian aristocracy tended to become Polonized and Latinized at a fast pace. These social and political conditions, which aren’t around today, contributed to the Latinization and EC’s still live with the fallout of that era.

Alex

 

[KyivAndrew]

Rome … and its affirmations that Eastern Catholics are to recover and return to their traditions, including ecclesial traditions where the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches explicitly states, if I recall correctly, that new patriarchates are to be established etc.

From the DECREE ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCHES OF THE EASTERN RITE
ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

11. 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.

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

The largest Eastern Catholic Church in the world is the Ukrainian Catholic, which has requested on many, many an occasion that the above Papal Decree on the desire for erection of Patriarchates be fulfilled in this, the largest Eastern Catholic Church. There is need. Many Eastern Catholic Churches smaller than ours have their own Patriarchates. This modern Church of martyrs, the Ukrainian Catholic, has desired a Patriarchate from back when its clergy were still hiding in forests in the Soviet Union and conducting illegal Catholic services and giving sacraments to the faithful at great risk to themselves and families, while some in the Vatican were pleasantly conducting Ostpolitik with the Soviets.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

 

[Augustus24]

Looks like most Ukrainian Greek Catholics see him as their patriarch rather then major archbishop anyway.

I hope that the Holy Father Benedict Pope of Rome, and the Congregation for Eastern Churches recognizes what God has already done, and simply accept that he is already a patriarch.

Question for UG and Ruthenian Catholics:

Would you support the reunification of the two churches under the leadership of one patriarch in Kiev or some other place?

 

[countertenor]

Question for UG and Ruthenian Catholics:

Would you support the reunification of the two churches under the leadership of one patriarch in Kiev or some other place?

I don’t have a problem with that.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Looks like most Ukrainian Greek Catholics see him as their patriarch rather then major archbishop anyway.

I hope that the Holy Father Benedict Pope of Rome, and the Congregation for Eastern Churches recognizes what God has already done, and simply accept that he is already a patriarch.

Question for UG and Ruthenian Catholics:

Would you support the reunification of the two churches under the leadership of one patriarch in Kiev or some other place?

As I am not Ukrainian and have seen how ethnic the UGCC can be, I would not be in favor of such a thing.

But I could be persuaded.

One good first step could be the Ukrainian Church in America to start using Sts Cyril and Methodius Byzantine Seminary in Pittsburgh. After all it seems to be good enough for the Melkites to use with us Ruthenians. Or at least enter into talks to combine our seminaries. We could move up to DC where the UGCC is.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Question for UG and Ruthenian Catholics:

Would you support the reunification of the two churches under the leadership of one patriarch in Kiev or some other place?

Yes, as a Ukrainian Greek Catholic, I would support such a move. However, the first step would have to be taken in the old country, not here in North America I believe. The Greek Catholic Eparchy in Mukachevo, Ukraine, and the Metropolia of Priashiv in Slovakia would have to agree. I believe the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine has been open to such a move ever since the Greek Catholics came out of the catacombs in Ukraine after the Soviet Union collapsed. Things over there were pretty interspersed as it was; the lay leader of the illegal Ukrainian Catholic Church in Ukraine under the Soviets hailed from the Zakarpattia oblast in Ukraine, the province from which many of today’s “Ruthenian” Catholics emigrated prior to WW1 to the USA when people from Ukraine might still describe themselves as Ruthenian or Ukrainian.

I am sure that to the lay leader of the Ukrainian Catholic underground church back in the 1980s, Ruthenian and Ukrainian meant the same thing ethnically - no difference.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Hesychios]

Yes, as a Ukrainian Greek Catholic, I would support such a move. However, the first step would have to be taken in the old country, not here in North America I believe. The Greek Catholic Eparchy in Mukachevo, Ukraine, and the Metropolia of Priashiv in Slovakia would have to agree.

I suppose the eparchy of Mukachevo may agree. I don’t see why not.

But would Rome agree?

 

[KyivAndrew]

I suppose the eparchy of Mukachevo may agree. I don’t see why not.

But would Rome agree?

I can’t see why Rome would not if the leadership of the Greek-Catholic eparchy of Mukachevo so desired but I am not aware of any such request from Mukachevo. (I believe Lviv approached Mukachevo for discussions on this very topic, but Mukachevo decided to let things stay as they were).

I think Rome is more concerned about Roman Catholics in Ukraine than say Greek-Catholics. If the Greek-Catholics of Mukachevo (correction: Greek-Catholic hierarchy of Mukachevo) wishes to join the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in one Ukrainian Greek-Catholic body, Rome won’t stop it in my honest opinion. Here is the webpage of the Mukachevo eparchy (which is in Ukrainian; I post to show that Mukachevo uses the same Ukrainian language obviously, and not a regional dialect):
mgce.uz.ua/index.php

One will find the names of the same martyrs we venerate in the Ukrainian Catholic Church. The same. (The current Bishop of Mukachevo, however, is from Slovakia, where religious oppression during communist times did not touch Ukrainian/Ruthenian Greek Catholics in Slovakia as badly as it did in Ukraine).

I was going to go into the separate history of Mukachevo vs. Lviv, but then I really will be taking this thread off the original topic.

It is mostly inertia right now which explains the Greek-Catholic eparchy of Mukachevo remaining separate from the Ukrainian Catholics; that, a complex political situation, and a slightly different history, but even that is fading as both face the same challenges.

My 2 cents.