Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church - Autonomous?

[Athan]

If the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is a Church in its own right which is in Communion with Rome, then why is it that Rome only permits it’s head to bear the title ‘Major Archbishop’ (which is a bit like calling him an Arch-Archbishop!) rather than ‘Patriarch’? How does Rome have any say in it?

Anyone know?

 

[anixx]

If the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is a Church in its own right which is in Communion with Rome, then why is it that Rome only permits it’s head to bear the title ‘Major Archbishop’ (which is a bit like calling him an Arch-Archbishop!) rather than ‘Patriarch’? How does Rome have any say in it?

Anyone know?

It’s not a Church in it’s own right, it is part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. To my knowledge most, if not all, of the Patriarchates are only as honorary titles. They don’t bare any legal power. Not anymore. And even a Patriarch must acknowledge the supremacy of the petrine successor. Anyone in full communion with the Church answers to Rome. So, it cannot be autonomous.

 

[Athan]

Sorry, but you’re wrong in just about every detail.

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is a Church, sui juris, which is recognised as autonomous with its own hierarchy in communion with the Church of Rome. There are 22 Churches sui juris, which are all Eastern Catholic Churches.

However, your response does make a good point in a roundabout way, as it seems to me that the situation I’m questioning in the first place seems to suggest that the UGCC is a Church sui juris in name only and seems to be regarded in reality as more of a ‘Diocese’.

Can anyone enlighten me?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Sorry, but you’re wrong in just about every detail.

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is a Church, sui juris, which is recognised as autonomous with its own hierarchy in communion with the Church of Rome. There are 22 Churches sui juris, which are all Eastern Catholic Churches.

However, your response does make a good point in a roundabout way, as it seems to me that the situation I’m questioning in the first place seems to suggest that the UGCC is a Church sui juris in name only and seems to be regarded in reality as more of a ‘Diocese’.

Can anyone enlighten me?

The Title Patriarch is accepted by the UGCC, and many other Eastern Churches; what Rome chooses to call the UGCC Patriarch is immaterial except for purposes of Rome related activities.

Very Rev. Fr. Robert Taft, has in the past, recommended changing all the letterhead and logos to say “Patriarch”, and returning any mail addressed to “Major Archbishop” or whatever saying “this person doesn’t live here”. That’s one way to get the point across.

 

[Athan]

The Title Patriarch is accepted by the UGCC, and many other Eastern Churches; what Rome chooses to call the UGCC Patriarch is immaterial except for purposes of Rome related activities.

I see. So Rome won’t use the title because the Russians would go into melt-down, but they don’t attempt to forbid the UGCC applying and using the title themselves?

 

[SyroMalankara]

I see. So Rome won’t use the title because the Russians would go into melt-down, but they don’t attempt to forbid the UGCC applying and using the title themselves?

That’s right. The same issue happened when the Syro-Malankara “major archbishop” was elevated, he rightly accepted the Syriac title “Catholicos” internally, and as far as our church is concerned Canonically (it’s in our particular laws). The Malankara Orthodox complained to Rome, and Rome said “we have no such title in our church”; which was accurate, since the title didn’t come from Rome but from the Malankara Syriac Tradition of the Church herself.

 

[Athan]

That’s right. The same issue happened when the Syro-Malankara “major archbishop” was elevated, he rightly accepted the Syriac title “Catholicos” internally, and as far as our church is concerned Canonically (it’s in our particular laws). The Malankara Orthodox complained to Rome, and Rome said “we have no such title in our church”; which was accurate, since the title didn’t come from Rome but from the Malankara Syriac Tradition of the Church herself.

Right, I see.

Thanks very much for that - it’s really very helpful.

God bless you.

 

[Peter_J]

It’s not a Church in it’s own right, it is part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. To my knowledge most, if not all, of the Patriarchates are only as honorary titles. They don’t bare any legal power. Not anymore. And even a Patriarch must acknowledge the supremacy of the petrine successor. Anyone in full communion with the Church answers to Rome. So, it cannot be autonomous.

Hi anixx. I hope this won’t sound elitist, but there’s certain information you need to be familiar with before jumping into a conversation like this one. Most notably:

There **are **multiple churches (e.g. the Latin Church and the UGCC) within the Roman Communion. That doesn’t contradict the “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” that we say in the creed.

Even though there are cases where a bishop has the title “Patriarch” as an honorary title (e.g. “Patriarch of Milan”, “Patriarch of Venice”, etc) I don’t think that’s at all relevant to the Patriarchs under consideration in this thread.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by SyroMalankara
That’s right. The same issue happened when the Syro-Malankara “major archbishop” was elevated, he rightly accepted the Syriac title “Catholicos” internally, and as far as our church is concerned Canonically (it’s in our particular laws). The Malankara Orthodox complained to Rome, and Rome said “we have no such title in our church”; which was accurate, since the title didn’t come from Rome but from the Malankara Syriac Tradition of the Church herself.

Nor are those two the only sui iuris churches to lack the status “patriarchate”. (Just to complicate your life even more. )

 

[wynd]

Very Rev. Fr. Robert Taft, has in the past, recommended changing all the letterhead and logos to say “Patriarch”, and returning any mail addressed to “Major Archbishop” or whatever saying “this person doesn’t live here”. That’s one way to get the point across.

Haha!

 

[Vico]

• Patriarch Nersès Bédros XIX Tarmouni of the Armenians
• Patriarch Louis Raphael I Sako of the Chaldeans
• Major Archbishop George Alencherry of the Syro-Malabars
• Patriarch Ibrahim Isaac Sidrak of the Copts
• Patriarch Béchara Pierre Raï of the Maronites
• Patriarch Ignace Youssif III Younan of the Syrians
• Major Archbishop Baselios Cleemis Thottunkal of the Syro-Malankaras
• Patriarch Gregorios III Laham of the Greek-Melkites
• Major Archbishop Lucian Muresan of Fagaras si Alba Iulia of the Romanians
• Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk of Kyiv of the Ukrainians

All in communion with Rome, Pope Francis.

 

[Peter_J]

Btw, although the official term is sui iuris, unofficially I think you’re right to translate it into English as “autonomous”. Especially since that term is standard in Orthodoxy, orthodoxwiki.org/Autonomy .

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is a Church, sui juris, which is recognised as autonomous with its own hierarchy in communion with the Church of Rome.

 

[Peter_J]

Incidentally, knowing the internet (and knowing this forum in particular) I have a feeling that your second question,

How does Rome have any say in it?

will get more responses that all the other questions combined.

 

[anixx]

Hi anixx. I hope this won’t sound elitist, but there’s certain information you need to be familiar with before jumping into a conversation like this one. Most notably:

There **are **multiple churches (e.g. the Latin Church and the UGCC) within the Roman Communion. That doesn’t contradict the “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” that we say in the creed.

Even though there are cases where a bishop has the title “Patriarch” as an honorary title (e.g. “Patriarch of Milan”, “Patriarch of Venice”, etc) I don’t think that’s at all relevant to the Patriarchs under consideration in this thread.

I beg the difference, there aren’t multiple churches, maybe you wanted to say multiple rites. Church is one, rites are many. A rite may have it’s own Liturgy, Cannon Law, but the same faith. As autonomous or sui iuris a rite may be, it still, in ultimate instance, answers to Rome alone, to st Peter’s successor, or there would be no unity.
And you weren’t an elitist in trying to explain. It’s called charity, to drive someone out of ignorance, someone like me.

 

[Peter_J]

And you weren’t an elitist in trying to explain. It’s called charity, to drive someone out of ignorance, someone like me.

Well thank you, anixx. I tried to construct that post in a way that would help the conversation stay on the right track.

I beg the difference, there aren’t multiple churches, maybe you wanted to say multiple rites. Church is one, rites are many. A rite may have it’s own Liturgy, Cannon Law, but the same faith.

You’re right in thinking that “rite” and “church” are not interchangeable. You’re wrong, however, in thinking that I meant to say “rites”. I’m very clear on the distinction, and the UGCC is a church.

For more info see, for example, Churches, Rites, or Sisters?

 

[twf]

Hi anixx. I hope this won’t sound elitist, but there’s certain information you need to be familiar with before jumping into a conversation like this one. Most notably:

There **are **multiple churches (e.g. the Latin Church and the UGCC) within the Roman Communion. That doesn’t contradict the “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” that we say in the creed.

Even though there are cases where a bishop has the title “Patriarch” as an honorary title (e.g. “Patriarch of Milan”, “Patriarch of Venice”, etc) I don’t think that’s at all relevant to the Patriarchs under consideration in this thread.

Peter,
Have to correct you here. There is no Patriarch of Milan. The Archdiocese of Milan does have its own patrimony / rite - the Ambrosian Rite - but its hierarch is simply the Metropolitan Archbishop of Milan.

Not that this correction is in anyway material to your point, but I thought I would bring it up anyway!
The current honorary Latin patriarchs are:
Jerusalem
Venice
Lisbon
Goa (East Indies)

 

[anixx]

Well thank you, anixx. I tried to construct that post in a way that would help the conversation stay on the right track.

You’re right in thinking that “rite” and “church” are not interchangeable. You’re wrong, however, in thinking that I meant to say “rites”. I’m very clear on the distinction, and the UGCC is a church.

For more info see, for example, Churches, Rites, or Sisters?

I see now. It’s weird, though. I have to process this new information. :compcoff::manvspc::takethat:
But, still, in ultimate instance, they answer to the Supreme Pontiff. So, autonomy in internal matters, such as liturgy, hierarchy, law, but not doctrine. Am I saying this right? For I am confused right now. :whacky:

 

[Aramis]

Btw, although the official term is sui iuris, unofficially I think you’re right to translate it into English as “autonomous”. Especially since that term is standard in Orthodoxy, orthodoxwiki.org/Autonomy .

Sui Iuris churches have slightly more autonomy than most Orthodox Autonomous Churches, but considerably less that autocephalous churches

 

[Peter_J]

Sui Iuris churches have slightly more autonomy than most Orthodox Autonomous Churches,

Interesting. I was anticipating someone (possibly) saying just the opposite.

 

[Peter_J]

Peter,
Have to correct you here. There is no Patriarch of Milan.

Good point.