Ukrainian Greek Catholic "Patriarch"

  • Thread starter Thread starter twf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

twf

Guest
I don’t mean any offense to my Ukrainian Greek Catholic brothers and sisters, but is it proper for this church sui iuris to appropriate for itself the title and status of “patriarch”? Historically, aren’t churches raised to the patriarchal dignity by the Church Universal? Could someone please explain this to me. Thanks.
 
Technically, it is NOT a patriarchal church, but a Major Archepiscopal Church. The functional differences are VERY few.
  1. They must await confirmation from rome when they elect their primate, and Rome may say “No.”
  2. New eparchies require permission of the Roman Pontiff
  3. the Cardinalate is not automatic.
  4. Union is presumed to remain automatically, unlike a patriarchate, which must formally as for Union with each Patriarch.
  5. The Major Archbishop holds precedence as a primate, not as a patriarch, and above the Archbishops-Primate, and by elevation with the other Major Archbishop.
From the standpoint of the faithful, the only major difference is the title of their primate, and whether or not his successor will be a Cardinal as well.

Now, the Ukrainians have been calling their primate a Patriarch since Patriarch Cardinal Slippij. The UGCC Synod has at least once formally requested elevation.

The Moscow Patriarchate (EO) has asked that the not be made a patriarchate. Moreover, the UGCC is one of three Byzantine Rite major churches of the Ukraine; the others are the EO Ukrainian Orthodox (Autonomous, under the Omophor of the Muscovite Patriarch), and the Ukrainian Independent Orthodox Patriarchate, which is a schism off of the others. The Kyiv Patriarch of the UIOC also has made statements opposing a UGCC Patriarchate.

Truth be told, it won’t change how the UGCC operates day-to-day, only the ritual surrounding the election and enthronement, and Rome’s veto on the primate.
 
Dear Aramis:

What do you mean by: “3. the Cardinalate is not automatic.”?
 
Amadeus said:
Dear Aramis:

What do you mean by: “3. the Cardinalate is not automatic.”?
Click to expand...
A Patriarch of an Eastern Church is entitled to be made a Cardinal by rite of his election as patriarch.

A Major Archbishop is not so entitled. They can be made cardinals as the Pope deems fitting.

According to gcatholic.com:
Syro-Malabar: # Major Archbishop: Cardinal Mar Varkey Vithayathil, C.SS.R. (81)Cardinal Mar Varkey Vithayathil, C.SS.R. (81) (1999.12.18 – …)
Romanian: Major Archbishop: Major Archbishop Lucian Mureşan (77)Major Archbishop Lucian Mureşan (77) (2005.12.16 – …)
Ukrainian: Major Archbishop: Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, M.S.U. (75)Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, M.S.U. (75) (2004.12.06 – …)
Syro-Malankar: # Major Archbishop: Major Archbishop Baselios Mar Cleemis Thottunkal (49)Major Archbishop Isaac Mar Cleemis Thottunkal (49) (2007.02.10 – …)

So the Romanian and Syro-Malankar Major Archbishops are not Cardinals at present, and the Ukrainian and Syro-Malabar are.
 
Aramis said:
A Patriarch of an Eastern Church is entitled to be made a Cardinal by rite of his election as patriarch.
Click to expand...
But they, Patriarchs that is, may decline. As the Patriarch Gregory III of the Melkites have done.

I believe that most of the Melkite Patriarchs do this.
 
No offense taken. He is our Patriarch - the Bishop of my Eparchy has never referred to him as anything else in writing or in speaking other than Patriarch, so I will follow the lead of my shepherd. I know for a fact he has never been censured or corrected by Rome for using this term.

Every historical patriarchate was recognized as such first at the level of the particular Church. There was no universal proclamation of the Pentarchy as Patriarchates, nor for the Catholicos of the Armenians or Georgians. This was all done at the level of the synodal assembly. Rome in the 19th century began raising some particular Churches to the level of Patriarchate unilaterally, but when one examines each of the churches it seems a somewhat capricious choice based on politics as much as the need of the particular Church to have a Patriarchate (some are very small, smaller than one Ukrainian Greek Catholic eparchy by itself).

Our Synod has elected His Beatitude as Patriarch; there is no compelling reason to not refer to him as such, nor has Rome indicated we should absolutely NOT refer to him as such nor nullified the acta of our Synod. As an above poster has correctly mentioned, His Beatitude Patriarch +Josyp also used this title, without censure or official clarification by Rome that he was NOT worthy or entitled to this distinction.

The Patriarchate is the traditional form of governance for large particular Churches; certainly the largest Eastern Catholic Church with a presence on multiple continents, a well-organized synod with patriarchal commissions for governance (catechetical, liturgical, etc.) deserves such a thing.

The beginning of such things on the local level is not an uncommon thing - with saints there is a local cult that eventually is recognized by the universal Church, or sometimes does not go beyond the local Church.

In other words, if we don’t get with it and recognize this reality starting within our own particular Church, and prepare our hearts and minds to receive this both within the laity and clergy, it will certainly not be done for us from outside.

Our new English liturgical book (the Anthology) that was blessed by His Beatitude for universal use amongst English-speaking congregations contains the term “Patriarch” for his liturgical commemoration. We have not been requested by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches or any other Roman dicastery to change or modify anything, and they were presented with a copy.

In deference to Aramis, it will change many things once the Patriarchate is universally proclaimed by Rome, not only for our UGCC but well outside of her.
FDRLB
 
Aramis said:
A Patriarch of an Eastern Church is entitled to be made a Cardinal by rite of his election as patriarch.

A Major Archbishop is not so entitled. They can be made cardinals as the Pope deems fitting.

According to gcatholic.com:
Syro-Malabar: # Major Archbishop: Cardinal Mar Varkey Vithayathil, C.SS.R. (81)Cardinal Mar Varkey Vithayathil, C.SS.R. (81) (1999.12.18 – …)
Romanian: Major Archbishop: Major Archbishop Lucian Mureşan (77)Major Archbishop Lucian Mureşan (77) (2005.12.16 – …)
Ukrainian: Major Archbishop: Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, M.S.U. (75)Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, M.S.U. (75) (2004.12.06 – …)
Syro-Malankar: # Major Archbishop: Major Archbishop Baselios Mar Cleemis Thottunkal (49)Major Archbishop Isaac Mar Cleemis Thottunkal (49) (2007.02.10 – …)

So the Romanian and Syro-Malankar Major Archbishops are not Cardinals at present, and the Ukrainian and Syro-Malabar are.
Click to expand...
ByzCath said:
But they, Patriarchs that is, may decline. As the Patriarch Gregory III of the Melkites have done.

I believe that most of the Melkite Patriarchs do this.
Click to expand...
Under current canon laws of the Catholic Church (East and West), elevation to the Cardinalate is never automatic.

The chief hierarchs of Eastern Catholic Churches, including those of patriarchal status, are not entitled to be created cardinals even upon their election as patriarchs. Thus, of the 6 patriarchal Eastern Catholic Churches, the respective patriarchs of the Armenians and the Melkites have not been created Cardinal. I don’t pretend to know the specific reasons why. And only 2 of the 4 Major Archbishops have been created Cardinals by the Pope.

The creation of a cardinal solely belongs, and is the sole prerogative, of the Pope. Those to be promoted Cardinals are men (who are at least in the order of priesthood) freely selected by the Pope.

Of course, as David related, any one selected by the Pope may refuse to accept the elevation as the Melkite Patriarchs have done so in recent memory.
 
Amado is quite correct - the Cardinalate can only be offered directly by the Holy Father.

It is certainly up to the candidate to accept or refuse; while I am one for following and restoring the full received tradition of my particular Church I cannot see any compelling reason why one would refuse such an honor. If anything it gives the head of the particular Church another level to exercise his voice and the voice of his particular Church in communion with Rome by being part of the selection process for the Pontiff.
FDRLB
 
So is the creation of, or elevation of a particular Eastern Catholic Church to, a Patiarchate also not automatic!

Under the current scheme of things, the canons identify the Supreme Authority of the Church, who is the Pope, as having the sole authority to create or suppress patriarchates or, at least, the power to confirm such status.

In the creation of patriarchates, the Pope would accede to such desire of a particular Church if and when the opportune time comes or when circumstances warrant. This is a wide latitude given to the Pope.

Now, after 3 years or so, the Pope has not given his assent to the elevation of the UGCC by her Holy Synod as a patriarchal Church and to the naming of HB Cardinal Husar as her first Patriarch.

Internally within the UGCC, HB Cardinal Husar can be, as he is, commemorated as Patriarch. But officially in the wider context of the unviversal Catholic Church, HB Cardinal Husar has not been recognized as Patriarch of the UGCC. I think everyone understands that this may take a longer process than expected.

Given the proportionate size of the UGCC (even larger than any of the historical and ancient Eastern Catholic patriarchates), her time will come.
 
I disagree, to some extent. They are quite indeed apples and oranges - one the traditional form of a governance for a particular Church (I have outlined very generally the historical precedent). The other is quite clearly and has ALWAYS been an honorific given by the Pope most notably for inclusion in the electoral Conclaves. Only recently has that been extended towards Eastern hierarchs (Isidore and Bessarion I believe were the first after Florence).

The Patriarchate as an instution predates that council by almost a millenium.

His Beatitude is Patriarch, if even only within the Particular Church - which itself is not the case as I should note that other Catholic hierarchs outside the UGCC, including Patriarch Gregory III, have commemorated him as such. I heard myself Cardinal Bernadin refer to His Beatitude as “Patriarch” at a pontifical Divine Liturgy in Chicago.

Communion is love and mutual respect, and not submission. We are in communion with Rome but we are not a Roman Church. And our particular church is led by His Beatitude Patriarch Lubomyr, whether or not anyone else wants to acknowledge such a thing.

If our Synod’s actions were considered to be a breach of faith, morals, or otherwise dangerous to the universal Church, certainly Rome has had ample time since Patriarch Josyp to make an official declaration to nullify or correct such a thing. Silence goes both ways. But this discussion will likely be unnecessary within a matter of a few years, from what we are hearing from the Synod.

Until then, to our most Blessed Patriarch Lubmoyr and to our Synod, grant, O Lord, many years!!!
FDRLB
 
I misread a wording in Canon Law. The wording is that a Patriarch is granted as his Cardinal-see his patriarchate. So A patriarch doesn’t “take up space” in the order of Cardinals, while a major archbishop does.

I stand corrected.

Note that His Beattitude Lubomyr has been elevated to the order of Cardinal-priest, in 2004, of S. Sophiae in via Boccea, which was formerly held by Ukraine Cardinal Myroslav Ivan Lubachivsky, his Predecessor as Major Archbishop.

The sure sign of acceptance of the Ukrainian Patriarchate by rome will be the assigning to the patriarch the title Cardinal of Kyiv-Halyc, instead of a Cardinal-priest’s titular see.

And under the CCEO, only the Roman Pontiff can elevate, suppress, restore, or create patriarchates. (CCEO 57)

Canon 57
  1. The erection, restoration, modification and suppression of patriarchal Churches is reserved to the supreme authority of the Church.
  2. Only the supreme authority of the Church can modify the legitimately recognized or conceded title of each patriarchal Church.
  3. If it is possible, a patriarchal Church must have a permanent see for the residence of the patriarch in a principal city inside its own territory from which the patriarch takes his title; this see cannot be transferred except for a most grave reason and with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and the assent of the Roman Pontiff.
 
Could it be, perhaps, that one reason that the UGCC has not been officially declared a “patriarchate” is the issue of autocephaly?
 
malphono said:
Could it be, perhaps, that one reason that the UGCC has not been officially declared a “patriarchate” is the issue of autocephaly?
Click to expand...
Can you please elaborate on this issue?

Autocephaly is a pertinent issue in Orthodoxy but how and why is it an issue in the Catholic communion?
 
Amadeus said:
Can you please elaborate on this issue?

Autocephaly is a pertinent issue in Orthodoxy but how and why is it an issue in the Catholic communion?
Click to expand...
The Sui Iuris Patriarchal and Major Archepiscopal Churches are as close to Autocephaly as the Catholic Church grants/recognizes.

Orthodox Autocephaly is not quite schism… but it as close as is possible without schism. It is complete jurisdictional freedom from the rest of Orthodoxy, tempered only by the desire to remain in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy.

Orthodox Autonomous Churches are slightly less autonomous than Sui Iuris Archepiscopal and Eparchial churches, but only marginally; the patriarchal churches and major archepiscopal sui iuris catholic churches have more freedoms, especially to regulate their liturgy and theology.
 
Amadeus said:
Can you please elaborate on this issue?

Autocephaly is a pertinent issue in Orthodoxy but how and why is it an issue in the Catholic communion?
Click to expand...
Reduced to it’s base, autocephaly is the reason for the profusion of what I will call “national patriarchates” in the Byzantine (Orthodox) East (Moscow comes to mind first and foremost among them). My thought in the previous post was simply that perhaps the Church prefers not to address the issue, thus avoiding further conflict with either Constantinople or Moscow. Declaring the UGCC a “patriarchate” would probably, in Orthodox eyes, be considered the same as autocephaly which of course would open yet another “can of worms” which we don’t need. There are already enough obstacles to overcome. In any case, it’s just a thought.
 
Thank you, Aramis, for your explanation.

However, I still think that the concept of autocephaly in Orthodoxy does not exist in Catholicism.

Although the Catholic “sui juris” term may be “comparable” to “autocephaly” in Orthodoxy, they are not synonymous, far less equivalent.

Eastern Catholic Churches sui juris and their chief hierarchs, even those of patriarchal Churches, are subject to the ultimate authority of the Pope as Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church.

There is no authority above a Patriarch and the Holy Synod of an autocephalous Orthodox Church (except, of course an Ecumenical Council, which has not been convened by the Orthodox Churches).

In Orthodoxy, the concept of primacy at the universal level remains non-existent (or was lost after the Great Schism)…
 
malphono said:
Reduced to it’s base, autocephaly is the reason for the profusion of what I will call “national patriarchates” in the Byzantine (Orthodox) East (Moscow comes to mind first and foremost among them). My thought in the previous post was simply that perhaps the Church prefers not to address the issue, thus avoiding further conflict with either Constantinople or Moscow. Declaring the UGCC a “patriarchate” would probably, in Orthodox eyes, be considered the same as autocephaly which of course would open yet another “can of worms” which we don’t need. There are already enough obstacles to overcome. In any case, it’s just a thought.
Click to expand...
Thanks, malphono!

Yes, I believe this IS essentially the main reason, as seen from the Orthodox side, which Pope Benedict XVI (initially by Pope John Paul II) has been mulling over all these years.

It puts a hex, or a monkey wrench, on the sincere ecumenical overtures of the Catholic Church, particularly with respect to the Moscow Patriarchate.

Now, if only the UOC-MP, UOC-KP, UAOC, and the UGCC can come to grips with the sad division of the Ukrainian Church things might look better.

Until such time that a clearer picture of the Ukrainian Church emerges, the Pope will bide his time in recognizing the elevation of the UGCC into a patriarchate so as not to exacerbate the situation.
 
GJC! I’ve been following your conversation and would like to make a little comment. Ukrainians are special in church’s politics. Most of Patriarchates ware established as national structures. In the East, all the churches are national. As a priest who works in different byzantine traditions, I have this difficulty - it seems impossible to me to create an eastern American church, because it would have to be founded on a specific national tradition. Ukrainian reality is now and has always been for the last 800 years ripped between different political and ecclesiastical powers. And the policies ware never made by Ukrainians. From times of St. Volodymyr who was struggling to have a Ukrainian metropolitan until modern times when during the celebration of the 1020th anniversary of Christianity in the Ukraine, there ware Pat. of Constantinople, Pat. of Moscow and our President, none of the Ukrainian leaders had a say in the celebration, not even Volodymyr, Russia’s puppet. In the Ukraine, one cannot talk about a “Greek-catholic” or “orthodox” patriarchate. There could only be Ukrainian Patriarchate. This is why it will be possible only when the Ukrainians inside the country will be mature enough to understand that only the union of all the churches of Kievan tradition can bring, almost automatically, the status of patriarchate. And then we will see who will recognize it or not. But we will not care too much for the recognition, it might come or we might have to wait for 100 years, as Russians did.
Sorry for any linguistically mistakes. – Fr. Iouri Koslovskii
 
ByzCath said:
But they, Patriarchs that is, may decline. As the Patriarch Gregory III of the Melkites have done.

I believe that most of the Melkite Patriarchs do this.
Click to expand...
There were 2 Melkites who were Cardinals, namely Gabriel Coussa and Patriarch Maximos IV Sayegh. These are not well-known facts.

Anyways, the reason why the Melkites decline the cardinal title is because as Patriarchs, they are ranked higher than the cardinals and seeing that cardinals are “officers” in the Latin Rite, the Melkite knows it is not one and can have his own "cardinals… case in point, his entourage of priests and bishops who follow him i.e. patriarchal vicars.
 
If there were one reform I could impose, it would be the election of the Pope… I’d restrict the electors to the Patriarchs (of all rites).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top