Ukrainian Catholic church now Orthodox church

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

The Catholics have overlapping jurisdictions as well. For example, the Ruthenian Church (The Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris, formally) has 4 eparchies in the Metropolitan Church: Pittsburg, Passaic (NJ), Parma (OH), and Van Nuys (CA). Each covers a large chunk of territory.

The Roman Church likewise has dozens of bishops for the United States…

In Anchorage, two Catholic bishops have authority: Abp Roger +Schweitz, the Roman Archbishop of Anchorage, and Eparch Gerald +Dino of Van Nuys. Both are in full communion. Bishop Gerald’s predecessor, Eparch William + Skurla, concelebrated with Archbishop Roger recently. Roger did not wear his Pallium, nor carry his crozier, despite being in Anchorage physically, as it was Eparch William’s parish of St. Nicholas.

It’s not a “big deal” unless the parishioners make it so.
 
Aramis, thanks for the reply. I wasn’t aware the Catholics had the overlapping so many overlapping jurisdictions as well.

Right now there is a bit of a frustration because the Greek Orthodox bishop of Boston, Metropolitan Methodius, and the OCA bishop of Boston, Bishop NIKON, have a disagreement. While they are still in communion, Met. Methodius has disallowed Greek Orthodox clergy from serving with OCA clergy at the same alter because canon law states that there cannot be two bishops residing in the same city.

I don’t agree with that decision, primarily because the Met. seems to be making a fuss just to get recognized, but I don’t know his intentions. In the town where I go to church, there is an OCA church and a Greek Orthodox church. The priests often serve liturgies together (until this decree came from Met. Methodius) and now, even for a service such as Paschal Vespers, instead of serving, they can only stand in the pews or sing. They cannot stand as brothers around the alter.

^ As this thread is on the Ukrainian Catholic church and Orthodox Church possibly uniting, I think that would be the most beautiful part of the process; the bishops and clergy from both groups serving their first liturgy together, standing at the same alter table.

Aramis, a bit off topic but you’re from Anchorage? I’ve been to visit Kodiak twice, both times visiting St. Herman’s Seminary and Spruce Island. The first time I went (2005) we got a chance to stop by the OCA Cathedral there when they were revamping the inside. Anyway, I’m aware it’s not a Ruthenian place, but it’s kinda hard to miss in Anchorage. Enjoy the summer while you still have it.
 
Aramis said:
John:

The Catholics have overlapping jurisdictions as well. For example, the Ruthenian Church (The Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris, formally) has 4 eparchies in the Metropolitan Church: Pittsburg, Passaic (NJ), Parma (OH), and Van Nuys (CA). Each covers a large chunk of territory.

The Roman Church likewise has dozens of bishops for the United States…
Click to expand...
Parma Ohio is interesting.

Of actual Catholic churches within the small city there seem to be three jurisdictions each with a bishop:
  • Eparchy of Parma (Ruthenian)
  • Eparchy of St Josephat at Parma (Ukrainian)
  • Archdiocese of Cleveland (Latin)
    Other bishops who have jurisdiction but do not currently have parishes or missions (that I know of) within the city limits are:
    • Eparchy of Canton (Romanian)
    • Eparchy of Newton (Melkite)
    • Eparchy of St Thomas at Chicago (Syro-Malabar)
    • Eparchy of Our Lady of Deliverance at Newark (Maronite)
    • St Thomas the Apostle Eparchy at Detroit (Chaldeans)
    • Our Lady of Nareg Eparchy at New York (Armenian)
      There may be others.
 
Reader_John said:
Aramis, thanks for the reply. I wasn’t aware the Catholics had the overlapping so many overlapping jurisdictions as well.
Click to expand...
It’s normative in North America, and becoming normative in Europe, as Eastern Catholics spread. Further, it’s been normative in Italy for centuries, even pre-Split (O. vs C.), with Italo-Albanians and Latins; It was generally geographic, but some overlaps in mixed communities have existed for centuries.
Reader_John said:
As this thread is on the Ukrainian Catholic church and Orthodox Church possibly uniting, I think that would be the most beautiful part of the process; the bishops and clergy from both groups serving their first liturgy together, standing at the same alter table.
Click to expand...
That, fundamentally, is the goal: All Catholic and Orthodox priests being able to stand together and sing the Divine Liturgies of the diverse rites.
Reader_John said:
Aramis, a bit off topic but you’re from Anchorage? I’ve been to visit Kodiak twice, both times visiting St. Herman’s Seminary and Spruce Island. The first time I went (2005) we got a chance to stop by the OCA Cathedral there when they were revamping the inside. Anyway, I’m aware it’s not a Ruthenian place, but it’s kinda hard to miss in Anchorage. Enjoy the summer while you still have it.
Click to expand...
Kind of; I live in a bedroom community 10mi north, called Eagle River.

There is a Ruthenian parish in town, St. Nicholas of Myra, at 22nd and Arctic. Several miles from the RO Cathedral, and from the RC cathedral, too.

Anchorage has Greek, OCA-Russian, ROCOR, Russian Old Believer, and Antiochian Orthodox parishes. The ROOB parishes do not advertise, but their appear to be ROOB communities in Eagle River and Dimond (another bedroom comunity, in this case, south of Anchorage proper, but unlike Eagle River, continuous with Anchorage). I know of them because their children are in public schools, wearing Rukhavas and Sarafans, looking very much lifted from the 1800’s in Russia or Russian Alaska.

It is very interesting to note the ROOB anti-RO-MP and anti-RO-OCA rhetoric, which mirrors closely the RO-MP rhetoric against the Catholic Church. Sad, as well.
 
Christy74 said:
Yes, absolutely the Holy Day Obligations can be fulfilled by attending an Orthodox Divine Liturgy.
Click to expand...
That is NOT what the document says. It says that if a person cannot attend Mass in their own Church, that is acceptable to attend an Orthodox DL.

The point that you are missing is that if a person cannot attend Mass in their own Church, the obligation to attend does not exist ( the Church does not compel the faithful to do that which is impossible)

Since the obligation does not exist, the faithful may (and should) perform another liturgical act, either prayer, the reading of Scripture, or yes, attend a EO Liturgy,

But the mere attendance at the EO liturgy does not fullfil the Sunday obligation, rather it is a worthy act when the obligation cannot be fulfilled elsewhere.
 
JaMc said:
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?
Click to expand...
Well, it depends!
If they were raised in the Latin Rite, let them attend a church of that Rite. I don’t know what should happen if there was none in the area, though…
If they were raised in a Catholic Byzantine Church, i don’t think they should be deprived of a Mass in that Rite if there is a Catholic Byzantine church not too far from them…
I think a question was once raised as to the validity of a communion for a Catholic Byzantine who receives it from an Orthodox Byzantine priest. I thought the answer was yes, under certain conditions, but I don’t remember the details.
 
Brendan said:
That is NOT what the document says. It says that if a person cannot attend Mass in their own Church, that is acceptable to attend an Orthodox DL.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

The document did say that Catholics could fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending an Orthodox liturgy (or, more generally, the liturgy of Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome). However, that document, or at least that portion of it, no longer applies.
 
Can we see the actual 1967 document, please? So far we just have a quote from Fr. John Hardon that doesn’t cite its source, S.J., not someone who should be immediately trusted as such things go (his description of Latin theology is, to put it blunty, appaling in the works I’ve read; he apparently considered Karl Rahner at the forefront of Latin thinking, to name just one objection I have to his thoughts).

We can’t really know what the document meant without reading it. I’m not disputing out of hand that there was a 1967 document that allowed for the fullfilment of the “Sunday Obligation” at Orthodox Liturgies, but so far we have nothing solid that indicates that this was ever a reality.

Peace and God bless!
 
But the mere attendance at the EO liturgy does not fullfil the Sunday obligation, rather it is a worthy act when the obligation cannot be fulfilled elsewhere.
Click to expand...
We’ll need to see the definitive citations of law or Magisterial document to verify this.

Most canonists that I have spoken to over this (including faculty at CUA who advise the Pro-Nuncio) imply the meaning from Unitatis Redintegratio when speaking of the Orthodox, as well as * Orientale Lumen* to clearly indicate the Catholic Church is not adverse to any of her children attending an Eastern Church well rooted in Apostolic Succession.

Furthermore to my knowledge no canonical statement or requirements can be produced from the Magisterium that obligates the faithful to re-attend a Catholic church, feel personal guilt or “obligation” if they have attended an Orthdox church out of necessity or genuine spiritual interest (i.e. out of personal interest and not coercion) on a Sunday or feast day.
Fr. Deacon RLB
 
Aramis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Doxing. I’ll have to remember that.
 
Ghosty said:
Can we see the actual 1967 document, please? So far we just have a quote from Fr. John Hardon that doesn’t cite its source, S.J., not someone who should be immediately trusted as such things go (his description of Latin theology is, to put it blunty, appaling in the works I’ve read; he apparently considered Karl Rahner at the forefront of Latin thinking, to name just one objection I have to his thoughts).

We can’t really know what the document meant without reading it. I’m not disputing out of hand that there was a 1967 document that allowed for the fullfilment of the “Sunday Obligation” at Orthodox Liturgies, but so far we have nothing solid that indicates that this was ever a reality.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
Ghosty,

I hunted around a little and found the following. The basis for the claim seems to be the 1967 Directory on Ecumenism, paragraph 50 which as I understood it, dispenses one from attending a Catholic liturgy if one attended an Orthodox liturgy. It provides a short list of reasons why one might attend such a liturgy: reasons of “public office or function, blood relationships, desire to be better informed, etc.”.

The short article I read suggested that such a dispensation was only to be used occasionally and cited paragraph 47, but did not quote para.47. And I wonder, with blood relations, if marriage might have been a valid reason, in which case could the spouse attend Orthodox liturgy every Sunday? I suppose that doesn’t matter any longer since…

In any case, “para.50” is no longer to be found in the current Directory. That said one can, to my knowledge, still get a dispensation from one’s priest, etc. to attend Orthodox services.

salaam.
 
Badaliyyah said:
Ghosty,

I hunted around a little and found the following. The basis for the claim seems to be the 1967 Directory on Ecumenism, paragraph 50 which as I understood it, dispenses one from attending a Catholic liturgy if one attended an Orthodox liturgy. It provides a short list of reasons why one might attend such a liturgy: reasons of “public office or function, blood relationships, desire to be better informed, etc.”.

The short article I read suggested that such a dispensation was only to be used occasionally and cited paragraph 47, but did not quote para.47. And I wonder, with blood relations, if marriage might have been a valid reason, in which case could the spouse attend Orthodox liturgy every Sunday? I suppose that doesn’t matter any longer since…

In any case, para.50 is no longer to be found in the current Directory. That said one can, to my knowledge, still get a dispensation from one’s priest, etc. to attend Orthodox services.

salaam.
Click to expand...
 
Badaliyyah said:
Ghosty,

I hunted around a little and found the following. The basis for the claim seems to be the 1967 Directory on Ecumenism, paragraph 50 which as I understood it, dispenses one from attending a Catholic liturgy if one attended an Orthodox liturgy. It provides a short list of reasons why one might attend such a liturgy: reasons of “public office or function, blood relationships, desire to be better informed, etc.”.

The short article I read suggested that such a dispensation was only to be used occasionally and cited paragraph 47, but did not quote para.47. And I wonder, with blood relations, if marriage might have been a valid reason, in which case could the spouse attend Orthodox liturgy every Sunday? I suppose that doesn’t matter any longer since…

In any case, “para.50” is no longer to be found in the current Directory. That said one can, to my knowledge, still get a dispensation from one’s priest, etc. to attend Orthodox services.

salaam.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the note! A friend and occaisional poster actually sent me the information in a PM a while back, after I made that post. I forgot where I had posted it, so I never made a response to my own query.

Thanks for taking up my slack! 👍

Peace and God bless!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top