M
Mickey
Guest
Somebody alert the Liturgical police!
- Status
A
Aramis
Guest
Considering the OCA Bishop of Alaska refused to take the decision out of the hands of the local pastors… And, for what it’s worth, the small town priests haven’t changed their tune any since HG Nikolai was removed.Somebody alert the Liturgical police!
M
Mickey
Guest
Perhaps I will notify Met Jonah.
H
Hesychios
Guest
This is essentially the thrust of the Zoghby Initiative, wouldn’t you agree? I have seen where a Latin Catholic priest posting on the internet called it the “Melkite Disease” and he saw it as possibly spreading to the Ukrainians. I agree that the idea is shared by elements of both churches, but I disagree that it is a ‘disease’.
Unfortunately, to me it seems the only way such a model of intercommunion with both Orthodox and Catholic confessions could possibly work is for the Ukrainians to have total autocephaly, that means for the UGCC as well as the Orthodox (it still introduces a host of problems, but total autocephaly is a starting point) . Your church is not arguing from that position, so I don’t see how it can happen at all, the idea is stillborn.
I would say “I wish the Russian Orthodox and Latin Catholics all the best, but I wish we Ukrainians decide for ourselves and make these decisions in Kyiv, not in Moscow and Rome.”
However, the whole ‘Ukrainian’ and ‘independent country’ argument suggests phyletism (I know that is not what is generally meant, but it can be interpreted that way), so it doesn’t look that good on the surface.
This is not just a ‘Ukrainian’ thing, it is a pan-Slavic Christian issue. I think at a minimum the Belarussian church should be freed from the control of Rome so that a hierarchy can be appointed for it by the UGCC synod. And the church needs to relabel itself to get away from a strictly Ukrainian identity because it has a global calling.
Are you suggesting that this issue is linked to the recognition of a K’yivan patriarchate? Personally, I never did see the multiplication of patriarchates as a desirable thing, either in Holy Orthodoxy or in Catholicism.
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Great. Just as I am slowly winding up my limited cranial capacity to rest, in comes the poster from the other side of Creation with a nicely set-up counterpoint.
I think, in making the proposal, Patriarch Lubomyr Husar was well-aware that this might not come to fruition at all in the near future but a Start had to be made. The multitudinous and multifarious issues will most certainly not be ironed out by us on a computer forum, but at least the conversation can begin. By autocephaly for the Ukrainian Catholic Church, I would hope for a full and OPEN granting of Patriarchal Status for the Ukrainian Catholic Church by Rome. Neither the Pope nor the Vatican have ever protested our Church’s use of the phrase “Patriarch” for Cardinal Lubomyr, but it is evident that the entire territory of Ukraine (especially east and center) was originally looked upon as potential RC proselytization territory after the fall of the Soviet Empire and out of bounds to Ukrainian Catholicism.
I will be frank, and I believe Our Church, whether by Rome or by Rome under pressure from Moscow, was to remain isolated in western Ukraine, or so the Orthodox demanded. This is clearly changing. But you must admit, anytime talk of the Ukrainian Catholics consolidating in areas of Ukraine where Ukrainian Catholics may be found (Kyiv, the East where many western Ukrainian Catholics were deported to after WW2 by Stalin), the Russian Church immediately seems to make calls or visits to the Vatican to have this stop.
I recall as a student our Ukrainian Catholic Myroslav Cardinal Lubachivsky writing a Pastoral Letter to the entire Russian nation in 1988 on the anniversary of our Christian millennium asking forgiveness from all Russians in true Christian humility for any wrongs in history. This pastoral letter was received by many parts of the Ukrainian diaspora as ridiculous because it was Ukraine that had its culture, language, national churches destroyed. But O.K. we are disciples of Christ; what good is one if one only loves those who love in return, even the tax collectors… (Matt 5:46). Do you think anyone from the Russian Orthodox Church ever responded to that Christian request of mutual forgiveness, even after the fall of the Soviet Union?
Yes, but Rome never tried to physically destroy us as Moscow did in 1946. And we are in communion with Rome, whatever difficulties, with good reason and the knowledge of our Eastern Catholic Churches grows every day in the Vatican, at least when those in the Curia don’t succumb to pressure from Kirill on our existence.
Perhaps, but nothing approaching the phyletism of the Russian Orthodox Church to be honest. I mean their Patriarch traveled to Ukraine and told the Ukrainian people to not join N.A.T.O. (politics? as if Ukraine could join, and if it could, who cares, it’s independent), and the Patriarch’s p.r. agent told Ukrainians that they should call themselves “Little Russians” as this was more dignified than Ukrainian. Who practices aggressive phyletism?
The problem is the Kremlin (at least Putin) and the ROC do not consider Ukrainians a true nation, which theory was taught in Soviet propaganda. Where can one begin? The Russian Church and language and culture have free reign in Ukraine. What is there left to give but national sovereignty.
Hmmm. As far as I can tell we are to address the Orthodox in Ukraine as “sister” Churches in the historic Kyivan Church. Would the ROC only address us the same way back. But going global, though nice, would seem a far-stretch for a country that endured the twin hells of Communism and Nazism last century barely coming out alive. And the question of whether it can still exist on earth - in the face of the recently elected thug Yanukovych to President of Ukraine whose education and finance ministers can’t even speak Ukrainian or try to learn, only Russian, and laugh at Ukrainian history and culture - IS still Very Much Undecided. Whatever may be said, Ukrainian was my first language, I learned its history and culture growing up while this was illegal in the Soviet Union, and I do not wish for the nation or its Kyivan Church to die.
And believe me, between Yanukovych, Putin, and the current head of the Russian Orthodox Church, it may well die. I am not over-exaggerating. There is real concern whether Ukraine is to become a quasi-colony of Moscow again. And again, I have Russian friends, and I think the people similar to Ukrainian, but I despise the current leadership in Moscow, as do, for that matter, millions of Russians themselves who are to afraid to speak up apart from on the internet from Russia.
(continued below)
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Yes. In this instance absolutely. Ukraine is either the largest or second largest (after Russia) Orthodox nation on earth. You might complain about Rome, but in the midst of power politics between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Moscow Patriarch over canonical territory, the faithfuls’ religious lives take a back seat to power politics.
Again, I wish the Russian Orthodox Church holiness, happiness, growth, the saving of souls for Christ, but I only ask that Ukraine be left alone in its nation building and church life. Ukraine poses no threat to Russia, and Russia would be better off looking after its own spiritual health instead of empire what with rampant corruption and immorality - the exact same problems Ukraine suffers from after communism. We are the same in this regard as post-communist societies.
Our Church’s Patriarch has extended his hand. Filaret asks that Moscow stop interfering and allow him and Metropolitan Sabodan of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) to work things out. I truly think Metropolitan Sabodan would talk, if Kirill left him alone. The Ukrainian Orthodox is a sister church to the Ukrainian Catholic.
Again, as one poster mentioned on another thread, it is hard to read someone’s emotions on typeface on the net but I wish it known I have attempted to speak openly and I TRULY hope I have caused no offense. If I have, forgive me.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I for one am not offended. I have the same problem, I type things out and suddenly I sound like a bigot, hatemonger, spoiler or anti-something-or-other.Yes. In this instance absolutely. Ukraine is either the largest or second largest (after Russia) Orthodox nation on earth. You might complain about Rome, but in the midst of power politics between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Moscow Patriarch over canonical territory, the faithfuls’ religious lives take a back seat to power politics.
Again, I wish the Russian Orthodox Church holiness, happiness, growth, the saving of souls for Christ, but I only ask that Ukraine be left alone in its nation building and church life. Ukraine poses no threat to Russia, and Russia would be better off looking after its own spiritual health instead of empire what with rampant corruption and immorality - the exact same problems Ukraine suffers from after communism. We are the same in this regard as post-communist societies.
Our Church’s Patriarch has extended his hand. Filaret asks that Moscow stop interfering and allow him and Metropolitan Sabodan of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) to work things out. I truly think Metropolitan Sabodan would talk, if Kirill left him alone. The Ukrainian Orthodox is a sister church to the Ukrainian Catholic.
Again, as one poster mentioned on another thread, it is hard to read someone’s emotions on typeface on the net but I wish it known I have attempted to speak openly and I TRULY hope I have caused no offense. If I have, forgive me.
I want Ukrainian Orthodoxy to develop in a healthy way. I am not Russian nor in the MP church and I have no partiality. I like to discuss these issues objectively when possible.
I personally regret the passing of the age when there were just a few regional patriarchates. One has to make a distinction between the patriarchs of the once great Roman Imperial Metropolitan Sees we remember as the early Pentarchy and these modern patriarchates like Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania and Moscow. I just hope the Orthodox in Slovakia and the ones in Poland don’t start claiming patriarchs too, the whole thing is totally unnecessary, before long Japan will want one.
I remember reading in another Eastern Christian forum when some Byzantine Catholics were arguing for a North American patriarchate to encompass all of the Byzantine rite Catholics. The Ukrainian Catholic posters did not particularly like that, the Ruthenians generally seemed to think it was a great idea. Some Orthodox might want to see a patriarchate for North America, as a way toward final corporate unification, but I think it is not called for.
But back to the question of intercommunion within Ukraine, I think that there is nothing whatsoever stopping you from doing that right now with the two Ukrainian Orthodox churches. Moscow has no control over those at all and they can start communing Catholics who believe in Papal universal jurisdiction any time they want, if they are willing to abandon an Orthodox principle. All they (Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate) lack is the resolve, what the UGCC needs is permission from Rome. They could all get on with it and leave the MP behind in the dust if they really wanted to.
But what about Rome? Rome rejected the Zoghby Initiative (which seems to be the goal in Ukraine, or very similar) outright and the Melkites backed down. Many EC still profess to believe in it but it is dead in the water.
In ecumenical discussions between the Catholics and the Orthodox the EC are not representing themselves, all Catholic participants are Vatican staffers. It also does not seem that there are any separate formal discussions between any EC hierarchs and any corresponding Orthodox churches. If so the question has to be “why not?”
Rome has the eggs to name a hierarchy in Russia for the Latins (and places the Russian Catholics under the Latin bishops), but does not name a hierarchy for the Russian Catholics, nor the Belorussian Catholics. Nor does it recognize the Metropolitan of K’yiv as a patriarch when it alone has the power to do so. All of this is because of Rome wanting to be nice to Moscow or is possibly afraid of Moscow? I have never seen any formal declaration or admission anywhere that Rome refrains from supporting it’s EC to be ecumenically nice to Moscow, it is like an urban legend or folk wisdom that gets passed around so much people generally believe it.
So what if it is true that Rome wants to be nice to Moscow? What that seems to show is that Rome is willing to sell the EC down the river to gain something for itself. If, on the other hand, it is afraid of Moscow (how could it be?) that demonstrates partiality, a willingness to risk the wrath of the MP and possible ecumenical fallout for it’s Latin faithful but not for it’s Greek faithful.
So if the MP is the bad guy in all this, what part does the Pope play? He’s the good guy? He is not irrelevant, he holds all the strings.
The EC are increasingly being marginalized. When the Orthodox hierarchs met at Brest in 1596AD, that was a big deal, they spoke for themselves and to hell with what the patriarch of Constantinople thinks about it. They in effect were declaring themselves autocephalous, bravely. Then they went to Rome and the red carpet was rolled out for them to celebrate their submission to the Pope. Today, no one is listening to them anymore, the only serious attention they can get is from the non-canonical Orthodox, who for their part may be self-interestedly looking for a way to profit from the UGCC situation without losing their own independence.
I mean no offense by stating this, it is my observation.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Michael,
Blessings,
Marduk
I think the concept of “total autocephaly” is rather a myth. No head bishop is truly independent and has the absolute authority to make his own rules in such a way that he does not need to give heed to his brother bishops, including the Pope of Rome.
Mmmmm. That’s not a typical Eastern attitude, though it is common among Orientals. Are you a closet Oriental?
Blessings,
Marduk
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
No, no urban legend. There certainly were and are elements in the Papal Curia who think they are doing things in the interest of the Church’s long-term health by hoping and believing that ecumenism will bear fruit if only Moscow sees Rome as her friend. They look at the statistic of the number of Russian Orthodox believers and think they will find fertile grounds down the road for a future inter-communion. I believe, as you probably do, that this is a total misunderstanding of where the Russian Orthodox Church stands. But some in Rome think they are acting in the utopian long-term, which I think is mistaken in this situation specifically. Hence, their fear of antagonizing Moscow. Look here as to how Moscow dangles the possibility of Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill meeting with the Pope if only “the Vatican would take concrete steps to show that there is a desire to be cooperative,” by which Moscow means the Vatican must truncate immediately the Ukrainian Catholic Church. That’s blackmail.
risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/confessional/interchurch_relations/33276/
Some Roman Catholics put misplaced hope in a meeting between the Pope and Patriarch Kirill, as here I believe: risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/confessional/interchurch_relations/33978/
I mean speaking of such a meeting as an “Icon of the 21st Century” is unrealistic. Moscow will never join Rome if ever, as I believe you have yourself have said on CAF.
You must certainly remember Cardinal Agostino Casaroli as Secretary of State for the Holy See and his Ostpolitik approach, an approach which caused anger amongst many in the Catholic Church, Roman and Ukrainian Catholics alike.
Well, I think that’s a gross-overstatement really. Things are not that bad with our Church and the Pope does hear us and know us. It is a church built on the blood of martyrs now. To put the “non-canonical” Orthodox as the only ones taking Ukrainian Catholics seriously is wrong.
For instance, on May 23, 2008, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone came to the Metropolitan Palace on Saint George’s Hill. The venerable guest from the Vatican was met by: the Most Rev. Archbishop Ihor (Voznyak), Rev. Bishop Volodymyr (Viytyshyn), Rev. Bishop Stepan (Meniok), Rev. Bishop Yaroslav (Pryriz), Rev. Bishop Milan (Shashik), Fr. Sviatoslav Shevchuk, Fr. Borys Gudziak, Fr. Orest Fredyna, and Fr. Volodymyr Onys’kiv.
Cardinal Bertone is no small-fry.
old.ugcc.org.ua/eng/news;7/
Or, On March 9, 2010, the delegation of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of the USA headed by Cardinal Theodore E. C, Archbishop Emeritus of Washington, visited the Patriarchal Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Cathedral in Kyiv.
“Kyiv is the center of Ukraine and I am glad that Greek Catholics are here because you should be in the center of the country. I hope that this very large and uniquely designed church will soon open its doors to the faithful and Masses will be celebrated here,” noted the Roman Catholic Cardinal, and I fully agree.
I posted it once before but a “marginalized” Church doesn’t build a huge Cathedral in capitals and have it praised by Roman Catholic Cardinals. youtube.com/user/pressugcc#p/u/8/-qsmaAYwP0E
And lastly, of all Eastern Catholics, our Church is the first to be releasing a full Eastern Catholic Catechism this year. This is historic and no small step and speaks volumes as to our future.
U
UnworthyApostle
Guest
May God make us all One in love and truth in the name of Christ. It is sad to see the body of Christ torn apart. Even though I am loyal to the See of Peter, I have a great deal of love and respect towards Orthodoxy. I prefer an Orthodox understanding of some theology better than the Latin churches. God Bless All!
C
choy
Guest
QUESTION
in an Eastern Church where there is a Catholic (in communion with Rome) and an Orthodox, are there two Patriarchs? if so, is there an issue as to who is occupying the seat of the Apostle who founded that Church?
in an Eastern Church where there is a Catholic (in communion with Rome) and an Orthodox, are there two Patriarchs? if so, is there an issue as to who is occupying the seat of the Apostle who founded that Church?
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Hey Choy. I cannot speak for the others but for Ukrainians it is largely a non-issue right now. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church was transferred under coercion from the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople and placed under the Patriarch of Moscow in the 17th Century. The present situation in Ukraine is that there are 3 large branches of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, one subject to the Moscow Patriarch (MP) in Russia, one which was growing at a quick rate: the nationally conscious Kyiv Patriarchate (non-canonical for now), and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (non-canonical). The situation is complicated because the latter two have both invoked the aid of the head honcho, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (the EC), who has heard them out. The problem is Moscow gets jealous of Constantinople acting the “head honcho” in Orthodoxy in jurisdictional issues, so the situation of the Kyivan Patriarchate remains unresolved despite having millions of believers belong to it.
You surely have heard the old belief by many in the Russian Orthodox Church that Rome was the First, Constantinople was the Second Rome, and that Moscow, after the Turks sacked Constantinople, is now the Third Rome. This “Third Rome” ideology was propagated under the Tsars and appears to have a new life now. So Ukraine, while having either the first or second most numbers of Orthodox believers in the world (depends, because statistics on Russia and Ukraine show Ukrainians are more church-going), has NO canonical native Orthodox Patriarch, even though nations with 10 times less faithful have their own canonical Patriarchs, some of which started off as non-canonical Orthodox I believe.
For Ukrainian Catholics, the largest Eastern Catholic Church, the head of our Ukrainian Catholic Church is firstly the Pope of Rome. Thereafter the Cardinal of our Ukrainian Catholic Church, Lubomyr Husar, is addressed as Patriarch and by and large functions as a de facto Patriarch of the Ukrainian Church (or Kyivan as it is called by some to address the heritage for both Ukrainian Catholics and Orthodox). The problem is that de jure the Pope has not officially proclaimed this title of Patriarch mostly out of fear on the part of the Curia of antagonizing Moscow which considers Ukraine its backyard sadly. I’ve linked in other posts of how some in the Curia put false hope in having a meeting between the Moscow Patriarch and the Pope as iconic. Moscow will not be joining Rome in anything meaningful anytime soon but it constantly tells Rome to deal with the Ukrainian Catholics as if we were the only barrier to a meeting of Christian heads. I can just picture the Son of God whispering in the Patriarch of Moscow’s ears: “Do not meet with the Pope until he deals with those Ukrainian Catholics.” Christ desires sincere effort towards unity surely.
I have no fear saying elements in the Curia are wrong when it comes to foreign affairs. Prominent Catholic George Weigel also had no problems criticizing the activities of the Papal Curia in a recent article.
For nationally-conscious and religious Ukrainians, I think either would like to see a native Ukrainian Patriarch, Orthodox, Catholic, or more than likely both, acting together until there is final unity in the Kyivan Church.
As for the Maronites, Melkites, Copts, and others, I am sorry Choy, they will have to respond as I am not familiar enough to touch on that subject.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Well if you look at Antioch there are five claimants to the See, three Catholic, one Eastern Orthodox and one Oriental Orthodox. As far as the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox are concerned, since they see themselves as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, they both see their bishop and the rightful bishop. I don’t know how the Catholics view it.
Yours in Christ
Joe
H
Hesychios
Guest
… and before the Latin Patriarchate was allowed to become vacant or suppressed there were six claimants, four Catholic under the Pope.
Alexandria has something similar. One Coptic Pope, one Orthodox Pope, one Coptic Catholic patriarch (not allowed to use the title ‘Pope’), one Melkite Catholic patriarch (patriarch of Antioch doing double duty) and also one Latin Catholic patriarch until the See was allowed to stand vacant.
It is quite unclear to me whether the Latin patriarchs ever resided in Egypt, unlike the case of Antioch where they definitely did reside and exercise jurisdiction for a good long while.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Another question. I know that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Patriarchs consider themselves to occupy the Apostolic Throne of St Peter. Is it the same with the Catholic Patriarchs? If so how does that square with papal primacy?
Yours in Christ
Joe
G
Ghosty
Guest
Yes, the See of Antioch is a Petrine See, but that has nothing to do with the Papacy. Alexandria and Antioch have always been understood as Petrine Sees, but the unique authority of Peter resided with the Roman See since the Early Church. Not even the Orthodox claimants of the other Petrine Sees claim Papal prerogatives to the Universal Church.
In short, it’s not merely being a successor to any given See of Peter that makes one the Pope, and it’s never been claimed by the Catholic Church that this is the case.
Peace and God bless!
I
Ignatios
Guest
The Holy See of Antioch is not just “a” Petrine See, it is the “FIRST” Throne of Saint Peter, The Holy See of Antioch is where the Christians were “FIRST” called Christians, the Holy See of Antioch is where the Apostles “FIRST” Launched their evangelical missions to all the world ( including Rome) in order to bring them to CHRIST.
Unique authority of Peter???
Anyhow, give us the evidence that the “unique authority of Peter (resided) with the Roman See”?
And we will give the evidence that it did not, as claimed by the Papacy.
Ofcourse not!!! GOD forebid… that we make such heretical claims, CHRIST alone is the HEAD of the Church, No one else share this with HIM, anything else, contradicts the Holy Bible and is blasphemy.
The only way this would make sense that if the other bishops were half ordained, and ONLY the Bishop of Rome is the one who was fully ordained, However, if it is so than, where is your evidence???
Peace and GOD bless you too abundantly †††
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Ignatios,
Similarly, though Antioch can claim apostolic succession from St. Peter, it is only the bishop of Rome who is the actual successor of St. Peter.
Blessings,
Marduk
Those are great honors, but they have nothing to do with the authority of the See. The authority indeed comes from the fact of its Petrine foundation.
Unless someone else has not done so, I’ll provide you with some by the end of the week.
Looking forward to it.
I would be interested to see your sources for stating that the papal claims are “heretical.” Also, what biblical grounds do you have that it is “blasphemy?”
Just because A obtains apostolic succession from B, that does not mean that A is B’s successor. For example, the Russian Orthodox Church has apostolic succession from St. Andrew through Constantinople, but it is only the bishop of Constantinople who is the actual successor of St. Andrew. Similarly, though the Ethiopian Orthodox can claim apostolic succession from St. Mark through Alexandria, it is only the bishop of Alexandria who can claim to be the actual successor of St. Mark.
Similarly, though Antioch can claim apostolic succession from St. Peter, it is only the bishop of Rome who is the actual successor of St. Peter.
Blessings,
Marduk
G
Ghosty
Guest
If others want to debate this with you, again, they have my blessing. I don’t have the time nor the inclination to rehash the Patristic quotes over again; there are plenty of more appropriate threads that have already dealt with this topic.
The question asked here was how having many Sees claiming a Petrine origin squares with Papal Primacy, and that’s been addressed.
Peace and God bless!
G
grace_singh
Guest
agreed, Ignatios.
from what i read in the Bible and from early Christian history, Jerusalem and Antioch played the earliest major roles, with the bishopry of Rome coming into prominance a bit later, and not immediately.
Egypt, Armenia, India, Jerusalem, Turkey, Syria, Greece, and other nations also can also boast Apostolic roots to their Christian communities.
Ignatios, your comment about the Bishops of those other early cites being fully ordained (as opposed to partially or inadequately ordained) rings true, as well.
what i would really like to see… the Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox churches all remaining Catholic or Orthodox, yet able to worship, take communion at, and inter-marry in one another’s churches.
- Status