Ukrainian Catholic Patriarch on Pope/RussianPatriarch Meeting : Feels "betrayed" by "halftruths"

[Tomdstone]

Oh absolutely. This was one of the concerns of the authors too:

(echoing the 1993 document, “Uniatism, method of union of the past, and the present search for full communion”).

The document signed by the Holy Father says that: “It is today clear that the past method of “uniatism”, understood as the union of one community to the other, separating it from its Church, is not the way to re–establish unity.” Could it be that this is a main reason why some Ukrainian Greek Catholics feel “betrayed”?

 

[KnitNut]

I admit, I’m genuinely puzzled by this thread. I read over & over how important it is to have the single head, how he can exercise his universal jurisdiction at any time, over any church, without question, etc, etc. So isn’t this a case of him opting to take a specific action (this meeting/declaration) on his own terms…and isn’t he entitled to do so?

The reason I ask is, I read fairly often a rebuttal to the Orthodox concerns regarding “supreme universal jurisdiction” that, "Oh, well just because the Pope can exercise his supreme immediate jurisdiction at any time over anyone/thing, of course he wouldn’t.

And yet, in this case, he chose not to include (at whatever level, it’s not clear to me if/when the UGCC etc might have been involved currently/historically) relevant participants, and now they’re voicing unhappiness in public.

Isn’t that basically “what you get”, if you go with the Supreme Pontiff model?

As a follow up - what standing does the Joint Declaration have, on the Catholic side? It doesn’t say “declare, announce” or whatever the required language might be for an “infallible” thing. But it was personally signed by the Pope…so arguably it must be binding somehow? I would like to understand how the document is seen “officially” within the Catholic church. (Father Ruggero, is this something you have experience with?)

Thank you for any insights you can share.

 

[Peter_J]

The document signed by the Holy Father says that: “It is today clear that the past method of “uniatism”, understood as the union of one community to the other, separating it from its Church, is not the way to re–establish unity.” Could it be that this is a main reason why some Ukrainian Greek Catholics feel “betrayed”?

I tend to think not. The way I see it, they wouldn’t want one of their communities to become separated from them, as a result of Orthodox actions, in order for said community to become part of the Orthodox Church. (Of course, it’s hard for me to generalize about millions of people, so maybe the answer is Yes for some of them.)

 

[Peter_J]

I admit, I’m genuinely puzzled by this thread. I read over & over how important it is to have the single head, how he can exercise his universal jurisdiction at any time, over any church, without question, etc, etc. So isn’t this a case of him opting to take a specific action (this meeting/declaration) on his own terms…and isn’t he entitled to do so?

There’s the age-old question (an age here being about 50 years).

Perhaps the most famous case in point for that question was the 1988 decision by the hard-core traditionalist Catholic Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to ordain four bishops (and the corresponding decision of those 4 men to be ordained) against the Vatican’s prohibition.

(Perhaps the only thing we can all agree on is that it would be difficult nowadays to be a true ultramontanist. )

 

[Tomdstone]

I admit, I’m genuinely puzzled by this thread. I read over & over how important it is to have the single head, how he can exercise his universal jurisdiction at any time, over any church, without question, etc, etc. So isn’t this a case of him opting to take a specific action (this meeting/declaration) on his own terms…and isn’t he entitled to do so?.

I would say that you are right. The time has come to join with the Holy Father and the Russian Orthodox Patriarch to support peace, Christian charity and good relations between Catholics and Orthodox. I don’t see how the promotion of good will and brotherly friendship in Ukraine can be thought of as a “betrayal”?

 

[Peter_J]

I would say that you are right. The time has come to join with the Holy Father and the Russian Orthodox Patriarch to support peace, Christian charity and good relations between Catholics and Orthodox.

Well , I like to think that some of us got there even before the Patriarch did (not that we should honk our own horns of course ); but other than that .

 

[SyroMalankara]

I admit, I’m genuinely puzzled by this thread. I read over & over how important it is to have the single head, how he can exercise his universal jurisdiction at any time, over any church, without question, etc, etc. So isn’t this a case of him opting to take a specific action (this meeting/declaration) on his own terms…and isn’t he entitled to do so?

The reason I ask is, I read fairly often a rebuttal to the Orthodox concerns regarding “supreme universal jurisdiction” that, "Oh, well just because the Pope can exercise his supreme immediate jurisdiction at any time over anyone/thing, of course he wouldn’t.

And yet, in this case, he chose not to include (at whatever level, it’s not clear to me if/when the UGCC etc might have been involved currently/historically) relevant participants, and now they’re voicing unhappiness in public.

Isn’t that basically “what you get”, if you go with the Supreme Pontiff model?

As a follow up - what standing does the Joint Declaration have, on the Catholic side? It doesn’t say “declare, announce” or whatever the required language might be for an “infallible” thing. But it was personally signed by the Pope…so arguably it must be binding somehow? I would like to understand how the document is seen “officially” within the Catholic church. (Father Ruggero, is this something you have experience with?)

Thank you for any insights you can share.

It would fall under the category of interchurch relations. The UGCC is bound insofar as it states that Orthodox will not be accepted into the UGCC as entire dioceses or Synods from the canonical Orthodox. It is vague regarding the uncanonical Orthodox, urging them to join the canonical Orthodox process rather than set up a parallel entity. However, it doesn’t really say what happens should the UOC-KP and/or UOAC join together or join with the UGCC on their own, or what will happen to UOC-MP parishes that join either, other than to state that the UGCC shouldn’t encourage it.

The concern mentioned isn’t at all outside the norm to seek the (name removed by moderator)ut of the affected party. Cardinal Koch was in talks with Met Hilarion, not the Pope personally. It is doubly surprising considering the UGCC Patriarch knows the Pope personally. It would be as if the UGCC created an exarchate in Rome or held a summit about reconciling the SSPX without mentioning it to the Romans. It’s possible that it could be done, just strange.

The EO don’t have such a Papal structure, and are more consiliar on paper. However in practice, how many OCA bishops were consulted on the ROCOR reunion on overlapping territory, or how many Titular Sees without parishioners do EP bishops head in overlapping areas with non EP EO? The on the ground reality is much more jagged than straight for all of us.