Of synods, elevations and patriarchates (especially UGCC)

[dixibehr]

I don’t know that Constantinople has ever given the Kyivan synod permission to act upon it’s own.<<

I know that Ukrainian Orthodoxy is presently divided into several factions. Patriarch Bartholomew has said that if they can ever get their act together, he will recognize the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as a Patriarcate, but until then he’s staying out of it.

 

[Diak]

An authority clearly outside its competence under the CCEO.

As has been well mentioned, silence by Rome on canonical matters has historically been assent. Rome simply could not allow an egregious disregard of Church canons at the highest level of governance of a particular Church to continue to the detriment of the universal Church.

Since Patriarch Josyp not one piece of correspondence, not one comment from any significant Curial representative has been presented to criticize the use of the honorific title “Patriarch”. Perhaps the most telling statement was in the early 1990s when Cardinal Silvestrini was prefect of the Eastern Congregation. One particular vociferous Latin hierarch was complaining not only of the UGCC’s “Patriarchal” claims but of the proliferation of married clergy. Cardinal Silvestrini simply said “it is not good for a third party to intervene” and asked the hierarch to leave his office. I do not recall that anything has been said since then.

 

[Diak]

I don’t know that Constantinople has ever given the Kyivan synod permission to act upon it’s own.<<

Actually it was the Ukrainian Orthodox bishops who acted synodally after the fall of the USSR and the continued refusal of autocephaly by Moscow. Kyiv is the historic see of Christianity for the entire region, so such a refusal makes no sense historically or ecclesiastically. A Tomos of Autonomy was issued by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1924 to Metropolitan Dionisy, at that time residing within Polish borders due to the post-World War I fractionation of the region. As Patriarch Gregory wrote in the 1924 letter with the Tomos “…it is written in history that the first seperation from the throne of the Kyiv Metropolia and of the Orthodox Metropolias of Lithuana and Poland, which belonged to it, and the joining of it to the Holy Church of Moscow was done wholly out of keeping with the canons…”

 

[Hesychios]

Good information here, father Deacon,

… A Tomos of Autonomy was issued by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1924 to Metropolitan Dionisy, at that time residing within Polish borders due to the post-World War I fractionation of the region.

Would this be autonomy, as distinct from autocephaly?

It seems that this event is taken to be the origin of the Polish Orthodox church.

As Patriarch Gregory wrote in the 1924 letter with the Tomos “…it is written in history that the first seperation from the throne of the Kyiv Metropolia and of the Orthodox Metropolias of Lithuana and Poland, which belonged to it, and the joining of it to the Holy Church of Moscow was done wholly out of keeping with the canons…”

I agree with this assertion. Historically it makes sense.

Most seems most properly the Ukrainian church, the Belarusian church and the Polish (Orthodox) church belong under the EP, until such time as each is properly released.

But a lot of water has passed under that bridge.

 

[Diak]

And equally good points. On a tangent I think President Yushenko showed a great amount of historical brilliance when recently inviting the EP as the primary guest of honor at the festivities for the commemoration of the Baptism of Rus’. The President’s respect for the EP as a historical ecclesiastical predecessor and arbiter in the life of the Kyivan Metropolia was quite public during this event. And no one can doubt that the original ecclesiastical provenance of the Kyivan Metropolia lies in Constantinople and not in Moscow. President Yuschenko likewise showed great restraint and sensibility in not forcing the UOC-KP issue publically during those events (even though he along with his family are UOC-KP adherents and his brother at one time was considering a monastic vocation in the UOC-KP). He seems to understand what the destination at end of the road is, but also well understands that the speed limit needs to be adhered to. I am sure St. Peter Mohyla would have been pleased along with the martyred Ukrainian Orthodox hierarchs from the 17th century onwards.

Getting back to your statements, Metropolitan +Dionisy appears to have interpreted the Tomos to include the entire Kyivan church. Already in the early 1930s Dionisy was consecrating bishops and appointing them within the Kyivan Metropolia, with +Polikarp eventually being given full administrative authority as Metropolitan of Kyiv. In the 1940s there were many consecrations within the Kyivan Metropolia by +Dionisy, +Polikarp and others. +Dionisy and +Polikarp also took care to conditionally reconsecrate those with suspect lineage from the days of +Vasyl and the “self-consecrated” within their own canonical episcopal lineage so no questions remained regarding episcopal canonicity. But already by that time many if not most of those bishops from the days of +Vasyl were already dead (including +Vasyl himself), having perished through Stalinist assasinations, executions or having perished in the Holodomor. There is not one instance of criticism from the EP during this time before the so-called “liquidation” of all of the non-Muscovite churches (whether Greek Catholic or Orthodox) in 1946.

 

[jimmy]

Like malphono, I subscribe to the concept of the pentarchy. It is a little strange that there is a pentarchy in Antioch alone. This is a problem with the unity of the Church. It would be nice to see a unity of the Patriachate but it probably won’t happen until there is some unity between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Syriac Orthodox Patriarch is the most legitimate. The Byzantine Patriarchs the result of the emperial politics of the 6th century. I think that WHC Frend’s book on the Rise of The Monophysite Movement is a good intro. that gives a basic understanding of the origin of the division within the Patriachate of Antioch.

Perhaps then we both should use Moosa’s preferred term, “Mar Marun” or another common spelling often used in Lebanon, “Mar Maroun”.

“Mor” is a more accurate transliteration. The ‘o’ is the west Syriac pronunciation. The ‘a’ is a east Syriac pronunciation. So Mor would be a more accurate transliteration for Maronites and Syriac Orthodox.

 

[Diak]

“Mor” is a more accurate transliteration. The ‘o’ is the west Syriac pronunciation. The ‘a’ is a east Syriac pronunciation. So Mor would be a more accurate transliteration for Maronites and Syriac Orthodox.

This opinion does not seem to be unanimous amongst Syriac/Aramaic translators or even clergy. Official Syriac Orthodox sites and sources continue to use both forms widely in English. Unfortunately the Maronite Patriarchal website is only in Arabic, so it is difficult to see what the English preference is; however I don’t recall Mar +Nasrallah ever being referred to in English publically as “Mor Nasrallah”. The Maronite History Project seems to use “Mar” throughout. His Beatitude uses “Mar” on his official Facebook page.

I don’t know if Google is indicative of transliterative propriety, but a quick sample of “Mar Maroun” gives over 16,000 while “Mor Maroun” gives less than 10.

 

[jimmy]

This opinion does not seem to be unanimous amongst Syriac/Aramaic translators or even clergy. Official Syriac Orthodox sites and sources continue to use both forms widely in English. Unfortunately the Maronite Patriarchal website is only in Arabic, so it is difficult to see what the English preference is; however I don’t recall Mar +Nasrallah ever being referred to in English publically as “Mor Nasrallah”. The Maronite History Project seems to use “Mar” throughout. His Beatitude uses “Mar” on his official Facebook page.

I don’t know if Google is indicative of transliterative propriety, but a quick sample of “Mar Maroun” gives over 16,000 while “Mor Maroun” gives less than 10.

I am going by the Syriac Grammar books which I have. They say that the ‘o’ transliteration is the western transliteration while the long ‘a’ is the eastern transliteration. However, at the same time as saying that the ‘o’ is the proper pronunciation they continue to use the long ‘a’ throughout the book for convenience.

 

[twf]

There is an important legal distinction between Patriarchs and Major Archbishops. Patriarchs are enthroned immediately upon election by their synods…Major Archbishops are only enthroned AFTER the synod’s election is ratified by the Roman Pontiff. How does this factor in?

I am reposting my question because it hasn’t been addressed. I am curious as to what the supporters of the Ukrainian GC Patriarchate have to say about this…

 

[Aramis]

I am reposting my question because it hasn’t been addressed. I am curious as to what the supporters of the Ukrainian GC Patriarchate have to say about this…

As yet, Their Primate has been enthroned after notification of Rome, not before.

 

[Diak]

I am reposting my question because it hasn’t been addressed. I am curious as to what the supporters of the Ukrainian GC Patriarchate have to say about this…

What is there to say? He is our Patriarch. Just yesterday at our Eparchial clergy conference our Bishop commemorated him at every appropriate time indicated in the service books as “His Beatitude our most Blessed Patriarch Lubomyr”. As a member of the UGCC I do greatly appreciate your charitable asking of the actual members of the particular Church in question for their opinion.

In non-Latin particular Churche,s organic ecclesial reality generally starts from the local Church up, whether that be the cultus of saints to higher ecclesiastical development. As has been pointed out the Maronites never involved Rome in the process of the election their Patriarch, yet he is universally accepted as such.

The Synod unanimously voted His Beatitude as Patriarch, the letter containing the Acta from the Synod was sent to Rome, and no official or unnofficial letter from Rome denying, nullyfying, or criticising the Acta of the Synod has ever been sent from either the Pope at the time (John Paul II) or the current Pontiff.