UGCC Patriarch resigns

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Why favor the Russians when the Ukrainians are the largest Eastern Catholic Church? Why not just keep them separate sui juris? The Russians will not accept a Ukrainian patriarch, and I think its not a good gesture to the Ukrainians to put them under a unified Rus Catholic Church under Russia.

The goal of reunion with the Orthodox is for all the Eastern Catholic Churches to return to their Orthodox Mother Church. Not create even more Eastern Catholic Churches.

 

[TheAdvocate]

I lived in Rome for several years and I had the privilege of meeting with Patriarch Husar on several occasions. In fact, once he and I went for a little walk during which he gave me some spiritual advice; that was during the time he was our retreat master. (Yes, I am a former seminarian)

Patriarch Lubomyr is the single best homilist I have ever heard. He can talk for an hour straight and you just hang on his every word. With every sentence he utters, it’s like he is drawing from a deep a spiritual well. There’s only a handful of people like him on Earth in the Church, east or west. He is a giant, and he carries the moral authority of a sort of Eastern pope.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The goal of reunion with the Orthodox is for all the Eastern Catholic Churches to return to their Orthodox Mother Church. Not create even more Eastern Catholic Churches.

Yes, a unified Ukrainian Church, not merge the Ukrainian Church with the Russian Church.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes, a unified Ukrainian Church, not merge the Ukrainian Church with the Russian Church.

EDIT: After second thought I have decided to self moderate my post and totally leave this discussion.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

Does Rome not reject the title of “Patriarch” for the head of the UGCC?

 

[Hesychios]

Does Rome not reject the title of “Patriarch” for the head of the UGCC?

I don’t know if Rome rejects it categorically. They are just not recognizing any Patriarchs of K’yiv at all, Catholic or Orthodox. Since they claim Universal jurisdiction they see it as their right and privilege either way.

That does not mean the common complaint (that Rome is currying favor with the MP by deliberately avoiding the subject) is actually accurate. Absent any documentary evidence, it’s just something people want to believe so that have a place to direct their anger.

i personally think there are too many patriarchs, Catholic or Orthodox, and the whole stink is a tempest in a teapot.

Still, I admire the Cardinal.

 

[mardukm]

Does Rome not reject the title of “Patriarch” for the head of the UGCC?

I am unaware that the Ukranian Synod has ever asked Rome for formal recognition. Perhaps our Ukranian brethren can correct me if I’m wrong.

Sans such a request, it cannot be stated that “Rome rejects the title of Patriarch for the head of the UGCC.”

I am also unaware that the head bishop of the UGCC has ever formally accepted the title of “Patriarch.” Again, perhaps our Ukranian brethren can correct me if I’m wrong.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

I am unaware that the Ukranian Synod has ever asked Rome for formal recognition.

I thought they did.

I would like to know when and how though, even to see a reference.

Perhaps our Ukranian brethren can correct me if I’m wrong.

Hopefully.

I am glad you brought it up.

I’d like to see a translation of the formal request, if possible, and when it was dated.

 

[Formosus]

I can not say with certainty concerning the first question, though +Slipyj made such a request formally at V II.

As for the second, yes our head bishop did accept the title from the synod formally. Though I can not recall whether is was + Lubomyr or his predecessor who first accepted the title.

(I apologize if I misspelt any names, its difficult to double check these things on a cell phone ).

 

[JackQ]

Why favor the Russians when the Ukrainians are the largest Eastern Catholic Church? Why not just keep them separate sui juris? The Russians will not accept a Ukrainian patriarch, and I think its not a good gesture to the Ukrainians to put them under a unified Rus Catholic Church under Russia.

I agree with this. The Ukrainian Catholics have suffered much for their loyalty, and I think the Church as a whole should respect that. Although I am sorry that the Russian Patriarch is so often offended by us, it seems to me that if he wants a say in how the Catholic Church conducts business he should enter into communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[Vico]

I can not say with certainty concerning the first question, though +Slipyj made such a request formally at V II.

As for the second, yes our head bishop did accept the title from the synod formally. Though I can not recall whether is was + Lubomyr or his predecessor who first accepted the title.

(I apologize if I misspelt any names, its difficult to double check these things on a cell phone ).

When Pope John Paul II* recognized, as legitimate, the Synod of Ukrainian Bishops that was created by Archbishop Slipyi*, it made Vatican-Soviet relations more difficult and threatened dialog with the Moscow patriarchate. That was in 1980, about five years after Archbishop Slipyi started signing documents as Patriarch of Kyiv and Halych. So you can see that recognitions have been a sensitive issue, not just during Vatican II time with Popes John Paul XXIII* and Paul VI*. Pope John Paul XXIII had been instrumental in getting Archbishop Slipyi out of the Gulag in 1963, through diplomacy with Nikita Khrushchev.

• All of blessed memory.

Wouldn’t that imply that if the Ukranian Synod has ever asked Rome for formal recognition it would need to be after they were recognized in 1980, to be officially received? I am unclear on this.

 

[Formosus]

To my knowledge +Slipyj asked for his see to be made a patriarchate at V II. That would have been before the synod was formed. The title “Major Archbishop” was created at the council to attempt to appease +Slipyj’s and the Ukrainian church’s desire. This didn’t work since after the synod was created , it just declared the ugcc to be a patriarchate without the Vatican’s approval. I didn’t mean to suggest that the synod asked for recognition at the council, but that +Slipyj ,himself, asked to be raised to the patriarchate.

 

[Vico]

To my knowledge +Slipyj asked for his see to be made a patriarchate at V II. That would have been before the synod was formed. The title “Major Archbishop” was created at the council to attempt to appease +Slipyj’s and the Ukrainian church’s desire. This didn’t work since after the synod was created , it just declared the ugcc to be a patriarchate without the Vatican’s approval. I didn’t mean to suggest that the synod asked for recognition at the council, but that +Slipyj ,himself, asked to be raised to the patriarchate.

That is what I thought also. None of the Popes (J23, P6, JP2, B16) has approved the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church being a Patriarchial church, apparently due to the complexity of the Moscow patriarchate. Archbishop Slipyi took to using the title of Patriarch in 1975, but the title Archbishop was given 12 years earlier in 1963.