Ukrainian Catholic church now Orthodox church

  • Thread starter Thread starter JaMc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JaMc

Guest
In the town I am orginally from, the Ukrainian Catholic parish has closed, and the building is now being used as an Orthodox Church. As unfortunate as this is, what bothered me somewhat was this article: saintaidan.ca/2008/06/saint-aidans-is-front-page-news.html (it is included as scanned images of the newspaper in which it appeared). In the article, the Orthodox congregation sees itself as “the torch-bearers, picking up where [the Ukrainian church] left off,” and the article then goes on to point out the similarities between Orthodox and Ukrainian Catholic practices.

While they may, indeed, be similar (I am a Latin Rite Catholic, so I am not 100% sure), given that the Ukrainian Catholic Church is in communion with Rome, would not the most “sound advice” to the Ukrainian Catholics be to start attending the Latin Rite Catholic Parish, at least until they can re-build their congregation? I realize the Orthodox priest was probably simply trying to “soften the blow,” and let the Ukrainian Catholics know they are still welcome in his Church, but, other than the overview of the history, neither he nor the article makes it clear that the Ukrainians are every bit as Catholic as the Irish, Italians, etc. who attend St. Mary’s Catholic Parish three blocks away.

Thoughts?
 
In the town I am orginally from, the Ukrainian Catholic parish has closed, and the building is now being used as an Orthodox Church. As unfortunate as this is, what bothered me somewhat was this article: saintaidan.ca/2008/06/saint-aidans-is-front-page-news.html (it is included as scanned images of the newspaper in which it appeared). In the article, the Orthodox congregation sees itself as “the torch-bearers, picking up where [the Ukrainian church] left off,” and the article then goes on to point out the similarities between Orthodox and Ukrainian Catholic practices.

While they may, indeed, be similar (I am a Latin Rite Catholic, so I am not 100% sure), given that the Ukrainian Catholic Church is in communion with Rome, would not the most “sound advice” to the Ukrainian Catholics be to start attending the Latin Rite Catholic Parish, at least until they can re-build their congregation? I realize the Orthodox priest was probably simply trying to “soften the blow,” and let the Ukrainian Catholics know they are still welcome in his Church, but, other than the overview of the history, neither he nor the article makes it clear that the Ukrainians are every bit as Catholic as the Irish, Italians, etc. who attend St. Mary’s Catholic Parish three blocks away.

Thoughts?
Well being that the only difference between Ukrainian Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox is that the Ukrainian Catholic’s are in union with Rome then going to the Orthodox Church would be completely seamless to the layperson; however, it would be a huge culture shock for a Ukrainian Catholic to attend a Roman Rite Church - it would be extremely confusing for the children for example. (A change in Creed, noticing that babies and little children are forbidden the Most Holy Eucharist, not seeing an Iconostasis, wondering why there are girls near the alter, seeing laypeople giving out the Most Holy Eucharist and it not being mixed together (Body and Blood) but give either separately or only the Body, etc.)

If there were another Eastern Rite Catholic Church nearby, perhaps that would be a better alternative.

Otherwise, since, according to the Catholic Church the Holy Day of Obligation for Sunday and other Holy Days can be fulfilled by attending an Orthodox Church’s Divine Liturgy. According to the Catholic Church, it is authorized for a Catholic to receive the Sacraments in the Orthodox Church; although, whether or not the Orthodox Priest will allow it, is another question. It would make sense to continue attending the Ukrainian Orthodox Church while a Ukrainian Catholic Church is unavailable.

You may also be interested in this article: cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=59186

Christy
 
It’s one of those cases where, if the Orthodox pastor is willing to accept them as they are, the Ukrainian Catholics there maybe just fine. HOWEVER, another Byzantine Catholic (of the 4 active in the US) would be preferable to at least some.

Further, if the parish closed, it is likely due to small numbers, or “'doxing” by the members anyway.
 
Well being that the only difference between Ukrainian Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox is that the Ukrainian Catholic’s are in union with Rome then going to the Orthodox Church would be completely seamless to the layperson; however, it would be a huge culture shock for a Ukrainian Catholic to attend a Roman Rite Church - it would be extremely confusing for the children for example. (A change in Creed, noticing that babies and little children are forbidden the Most Holy Eucharist, not seeing an Iconostasis, wondering why there are girls near the alter, seeing laypeople giving out the Most Holy Eucharist and it not being mixed together (Body and Blood) but give either separately or only the Body, etc.)

If there were another Eastern Rite Catholic Church nearby, perhaps that would be a better alternative.

Otherwise, since, according to the Catholic Church the Holy Day of Obligation for Sunday and other Holy Days can be fulfilled by attending an Orthodox Church’s Divine Liturgy. According to the Catholic Church, it is authorized for a Catholic to receive the Sacraments in the Orthodox Church; although, whether or not the Orthodox Priest will allow it, is another question. It would make sense to continue attending the Ukrainian Orthodox Church while a Ukrainian Catholic Church is unavailable.

You may also be interested in this article: cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=59186

Christy
This gets repeated a lot around here. An Orthodox DL never, ever fulfills a Sunday or Holy Day obligation for a Catholic. When no Catholic Church is available, the obligation is dispensed. In such a situation, a Catholic is free to attend an Orthodox DL and receive the sacraments (in the highly unlikely chance that the Orthodox priest would allow it). If a Catholic wishes to attend an EO DL and a Catholic Church is available, he may still do so, but he must also fulfill his obligation at a Catholic Mass or DL.
 
This gets repeated a lot around here. An Orthodox DL never, ever fulfills a Sunday or Holy Day obligation for a Catholic. When no Catholic Church is available, the obligation is dispensed. In such a situation, a Catholic is free to attend an Orthodox DL and receive the sacraments (in the highly unlikely chance that the Orthodox priest would allow it). If a Catholic wishes to attend an EO DL and a Catholic Church is available, he may still do so, but he must also fulfill his obligation at a Catholic Mass or DL.
Yes, absolutely the Holy Day Obligations can be fulfilled by attending an Orthodox Divine Liturgy.

*"In 1967 the Holy See declared that, “Catholics attending the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Eastern Churches, not in communion with Rome, do fulfill their Sunday obligation provided they have reasonable grounds for doing so.” “Such”, Rome also declares, “would be public office, or public function, blood relationship, friendship, or even the desire to be better informed about the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy.” This Roman document goes on to say that professed Catholic are, “Not then bound to assist at Mass in a Catholic Church. It is likewise a good thing if on such days Catholics for just reasons cannot go to Mass in their own Church attend the Holy Liturgy of their separated Oriental brethren if this is possible.”
**One of the brochures published by The Melkite Greek Catholic Eparchy of Newton also quotes that 1967 Document issued by the Vatican in regards to this matter. The brochure is called (to the best of my recollection) “Father Can I Come to Your Church?”. **

Yes, absolutely the Holy Day Obligations can be fulfilled by attending an Orthodox Divine Liturgy. I hardly think that Rome has “changed her mind” that would be silly and the Catholic Church is not silly.
 
sadly, the church is “silly” and has changed her mind since 1967. or at least so i have been informed. i cite the relevant document that was given to me here…
This is taken from the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, page 1145:
“The former Ecumenical Directory of 1967 granted a privilege permitting Catholics to fulfill their Sunday and holy day obligation at the divine liturgy of a separated Eastern church. This privilege was suppressed in the 1993 Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms on Ecumenism”
i am simply passing on the answer that was given to me when i asked this precise question. #1248 of the CCL seems to be the canon under discussion here. this issue is of great interest to me since i have an OCA parish out my back door with which i am very friendly. sadly i cannot worship there in fulfillment of the “sunday obligation”.

maybe the canons for the UGCC reads differently and they are able?
 
sadly, the church is “silly” and has changed her mind since 1967. or at least so i have been informed. i cite the relevant document that was given to me here…

i am simply passing on the answer that was given to me when i asked this precise question. #1248 of the CCL seems to be the canon under discussion here. this issue is of great interest to me since i have an OCA parish out my back door with which i am very friendly. sadly i cannot worship there in fulfillment of the “sunday obligation”.

maybe the canons for the UGCC reads differently and they are able?
I stand corrected: The Catholic Church is Silly

I wonder why the Catholic Church decided to take a step back from unity which we all pray for. Doesn’t seem helpful in the least - more like a slap in the face of the Orthodox. To all Orthodox who may be offended by the Catholic Church in this latest decision, I apologize.
 
I stand corrected: The Catholic Church is Silly

I wonder why the Catholic Church decided to take a step back from unity which we all pray for. Doesn’t seem helpful in the least - more like a slap in the face of the Orthodox. To all Orthodox who may be offended by the Catholic Church in this latest decision, I apologize.
Although I appreciate the sentiment there’s no need to apologize, there’s nothing to be offended about. What Catholics think of the Orthodox Church and our mysteries is totally irrelevant just as our opinion of your Church and sacraments should be irrelevant to you. We both believe ourselves to be the continuation of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. What a person or entity outside the Church thinks about the Church has no bearing whatsoever on the truth held by the Church. 🙂

Yours in Christ
Joe
 
I stand corrected: The Catholic Church is Silly

I wonder why the Catholic Church decided to take a step back from unity which we all pray for. Doesn’t seem helpful in the least - more like a slap in the face of the Orthodox. To all Orthodox who may be offended by the Catholic Church in this latest decision, I apologize.
Apologize for maintaining pure doctrine? We should apologize that our Church gave such scandal in the first place. Salvation is found in Catholicism- encouraging Catholics to attend Orthodox churches is running the risk of these Catholics abandoning Catholicism for Orthodoxy. And, as every Catholic knows, to leave Holy Mother Church is spiritually very dangerous.

The Orthodox Churches forbid their faithful from receiving communion at a Catholic Church because they understand that we are not in communion with each other- the Catholic Church prudently reciprocates.
 
I stand corrected: The Catholic Church is Silly

I wonder why the Catholic Church decided to take a step back from unity which we all pray for. Doesn’t seem helpful in the least - more like a slap in the face of the Orthodox. To all Orthodox who may be offended by the Catholic Church in this latest decision, I apologize.
I guess we decided to step back from the brink of sanity.

😃

Seriously though, I have to agree with JosephDaniel: I don’t see any need to apologize to the Orthodox.

Look at it this way: if that’s offensive to Orthodox, then isn’t it also offensive to Catholics when Orthodox say we don’t have valid sacraments?
 
In the town I am orginally from, the Ukrainian Catholic parish has closed, and the building is now being used as an Orthodox Church. As unfortunate as this is, what bothered me somewhat was this article: saintaidan.ca/2008/06/saint-aidans-is-front-page-news.html (it is included as scanned images of the newspaper in which it appeared). In the article, the Orthodox congregation sees itself as “the torch-bearers, picking up where [the Ukrainian church] left off,” and the article then goes on to point out the similarities between Orthodox and Ukrainian Catholic practices.

While they may, indeed, be similar (I am a Latin Rite Catholic, so I am not 100% sure), given that the Ukrainian Catholic Church is in communion with Rome, would not the most “sound advice” to the Ukrainian Catholics be to start attending the Latin Rite Catholic Parish, at least until they can re-build their congregation? I realize the Orthodox priest was probably simply trying to “soften the blow,” and let the Ukrainian Catholics know they are still welcome in his Church, but, other than the overview of the history, neither he nor the article makes it clear that the Ukrainians are every bit as Catholic as the Irish, Italians, etc. who attend St. Mary’s Catholic Parish three blocks away.

Thoughts?
Personally, i see no problem with them continuining to go the the byzantine liturgy, so long as they did not take communion. They would, however, have to go to the Latin Rite church to receive the sacraments, and would have to go there for easter, out of necessity, since they would be required to receive communion on Easter (At least thats true in the west. I assume its true in the east, too?)
 
The Ukrainian Catholic church has been kinda stuck between two relatively hard places. While they celebrate a byzantine (read: Orthodox) Liturgy, they are under the Pope, and therefore not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

If a Ukrainian Catholic was to go to a Ukrainian Orthodox church, the Liturgy would be nearly identical (however there would be no commemoration for the Pope, rather for the local Bishop during the litanies). If a Ukrainian Catholic went to another Catholic church, the person would be able to receive the sacraments in that church, but may feel alienated because the services are so vastly different from what they are accustomed to.

I am biased, as I am an Orthodox Christian, so I could not be expected to give advice to those effected by this. I know that situations like this have happened in Orthodox parishes in my area. Priests in both the Orthodox Church in America and ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) have “defected” to the other and taken part of the parish with them. Thankfully, ROCOR and the OCA are now technically in communion with eachother, however there is still much bad blood on the local level. It seems the greater evil is not that one group has “taken over” the other, but rather that we let it separate our spiritual families.
 
The Ukrainian Catholic church has been kinda stuck between two relatively hard places. While they celebrate a byzantine (read: Orthodox) Liturgy, they are under the Pope, and therefore not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

If a Ukrainian Catholic was to go to a Ukrainian Orthodox church, the Liturgy would be nearly identical (however there would be no commemoration for the Pope, rather for the local Bishop during the litanies). If a Ukrainian Catholic went to another Catholic church, the person would be able to receive the sacraments in that church, but may feel alienated because the services are so vastly different from what they are accustomed to.

I am biased, as I am an Orthodox Christian, so I could not be expected to give advice to those effected by this. I know that situations like this have happened in Orthodox parishes in my area. Priests in both the Orthodox Church in America and ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) have “defected” to the other and taken part of the parish with them. Thankfully, ROCOR and the OCA are now technically in communion with eachother, however there is still much bad blood on the local level. It seems the greater evil is not that one group has “taken over” the other, but rather that we let it separate our spiritual families.
Hey Reader John,

What do you think about this article? cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=59186

Apparently, the Ukranian Catholics will soon be the first Eastern Catholic Church to hold a Dual Communion with both the Church of Rome and with the Church of Constantinople.

What are your thoughts?

Christy
 
Usually the opposite is the case as the Ukrainian Catholics are typically more numerous in the diaspora than the Ukrainian Orthodox of whatever jurisdictions, be that the UOC-USA, KP or UAOC.

I regularly have Ukrainian Orthodox come to communion at our parishes out in the Midwest; while the Ukrainian Catholic practice is to commune Orthodox who approach the reciprocal is usually not the case.

But it is certainly acceptable for Ukrainian Greek Catholics to attend the Ukrainian Orthodox Church knowing, of course, there is not yet full Eucharistic communion. No Ukrainian Catholic priest or even Patriarch +Lubomyr himself would deny the intent for fulfilling the Sunday obligation is there in such a case.

The Ukrainian Catholics and Orthodox already do many things together outside of the Divine Liturgy such as Panakhydas, Molebens, cultural things, etc.
FDRLB
 
Hey Reader John,

What do you think about this article? cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=59186

Apparently, the Ukranian Catholics will soon be the first Eastern Catholic Church to hold a Dual Communion with both the Church of Rome and with the Church of Constantinople.

What are your thoughts?

Christy
Note from Moderator:

Please continue that discussion in this recent thread on the topic: Dual Unity?

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator
 
Christy,

Thanks for the article. I really do like the idea of unity between the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, but I honestly doubt it is a possibility for the near future. I am generally optimistic when it comes to such matters, but it seems that the Orthodox Church is having enough troubles as it is before factoring in a unification with the Ukrainian Catholics, which will most likely cause even more headaches.

Please forgive me if you know this already, but I am running through for anyone else who might be reading this thread as well. (If you wanna skip the history and politics lesson, go to the *)

The Orthodox Christian Church is not set up in the same political manor as the Catholic Church. Where there is the Pope of Rome, who has authority over Catholic churches, and is viewed as the head of the church, the Orthodox are much more complicated. To help explain this, I am going to temporarily ignore other jurisdictions in America and simply focus on the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). The OCA bishop of a region such as New England or the Mid-West is part of a group of bishops which govern all of America. The head of which is the Metropolitan of All America and Canada, currently Metropolitan HERMAN. The Metropolitan, while he has the largest territory, does not have direct authority over any of the bishops in his territory. He is simply called, “the FIRST AMONG EQUALS.” As a matter of fact, the Metropolitan currently controls the regions of New York, New Jersey, and Washington DC. The Metropolitan is not under orders to the Patriarch of Constantinople, as many non-Orthodox seem to believe, and an analogy between the Patriarch and the Pope would be incorrect.

There is an even greater issue that arises when other jurisdictions such as the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, or Antiochian Archdiocese, set up churches in areas of America. In that case, the various Orthodox Churches in a region are still in communion, but their governing bishops are separate people. The doctrine of the various Orthodox Churches (which are in communion with each other) are completely identical. The only differences you would see would be external such as musical, priest vestments, old calender vs new calender, etc. After these minor differences have been overlooked (those which do not effect the doctrine of the church) the various Orthodox Churches do exactly the same thing throughout the world.

As mentioned in the article, the situation in the Ukraine is a complete mess. Before the Soviet era, most of eastern Europe and Russia were exclusively Orthodox. During Soviet times, Orthodoxy was banned, and all practicing Orthodox were either executed or sent to various prison camps. When this happened, the Orthodox Church moved, almost literally, underground. This caused a break in communication from the previous centers of the empire to areas like the Ukraine. At the fall of the Soviet Union, when public worship became allowed, many Catholic and Protestant groups went into the area to evangelize. It has been pretty well understood among the Christian Churches that you do not go into an area to evangelize when there is already a local Christian Church who believes in the Holy Trinity and proclaims Christ Crucified and Risen. As an example, the Orthodox still recognize the Pope as the Bishop of Rome, and therefore have no right to institute their own bishop into the same area. The only difference is that the Bishop of Rome, from Orthodox eyes, fell out of communion after the decline of the Roman Empire.
  • If this co-communion between Orthodox and Catholic was to start, it would most likely start with the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Because there are doctrinal differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I do not know who would be considered the governing bishop of the church, whether it was considered the Pope or a bishop from any of the groups trying to become the autocepholous Ukrainian Orthodox church. (Note: the same thing happened in America before 1970 when the Orthodox Church in America was declared it’s autocephaly from the Russian Orthodox Church. There are still Orthodox Churches, whom the OCA is still in communion with, who do not recognize it’s autocephaly.)
Various things like the infallibility of the pope and even something little like the role of sex in a marriage would have to be compromised upon before there was any co-communion between the Orthodox and the Catholics in the Ukraine, let alone abroad.

I hope this wasn’t too much for one post. Thanks again for the link to the article.

John
 
Hey Reader John,

What do you think about this article? cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=59186

Apparently, the Ukranian Catholics will soon be the first Eastern Catholic Church to hold a Dual Communion with both the Church of Rome and with the Church of Constantinople.

What are your thoughts?

Christy
Hopefully, this wont tick off th emoderator, but just in cse you don’t want to read throught the entire convoluted thread that he directed you towards, i’ll sum it up for you quickly. Both Churches rejected that idea, and the Patriarch of Constantinople denied ever saying that he favored it. If you want specific explanations, check out the thread the moderator provided.
 
Hi John,
You said:
"The head of which is the Metropolitan of All America and Canada, currently Metropolitan HERMAN. The Metropolitan, while he has the largest territory, does not have direct authority over any of the bishops in his territory. He is simply called, “the FIRST AMONG EQUALS.” "
This is exactly the way the Melkite Greek Catholic Church views the Pope of Rome as “the First Among Equals” what a coinkidink.
 
^ Exactly right. My post was getting far too long already and I neglected to include that. Thanks. I was trying to show the differences between the Russian or American Orthodox Churches and what some would view as “traditional” Roman Catholic view of the Pope.

It’s just another one of those things that show how messy the whole situation is with the differences in the Catholic Melkite’s view of the pope versus Orthodox Melkite’s view.

I certainly think the group of bishops being equal is definitely the way to go. Especially in America though, the situation has gotten so out of hand with overlapping and jurisdictions not being recognized, that those issues must be first (and very thoroughly) worked out so that we have a ruling body who can then go onto address issues of unity. There’s a saying some people may be aware of, that God rarely ever does anything quickly. If nothing else, the Orthodox Churches certainly are doing that part right.
 
Reader John and Christy,
This is exactly the way the Melkite Greek Catholic Church views the Pope of Rome as “the First Among Equals” what a coinkidink.
Personally, I don’t have any problem with the Pope being described as “the First Among Equals”. I just have a problem with those who say that his primacy is only a “Primacy of Honor”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top