www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Metropolitan Basil has been to Houston!

Dear Administrator,

Actually, the Eastern tradition respecting names is that when someone is tonsured a monastic, he or she chooses another name that begins with the same first letter of their baptismal Christian name.

Thus, Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky was tonsured as "Andrew" because he went by "Alexander" (he was "Roman Maria Alexander" but used "Alexander").

Someone with the name of "John" could be tonsured as "Jehosaphat" or something really "jumping" like that . . .

And we call our Patriarch "His Beatitude Patriarch Lubomyr" and NEVER refer to him as a Cardinal (unless a papal nuncio is present and wants to call him that).

The West has the tradition of even male monastics sometimes taking the name of "Mary" as a second name in religion to indicate dedication to the Mother of God.

In the East Slavic tradition, "Mary" as a name that refers to the Mother of God is never given to anyone and when a girl is christened "Mary" this must refer to a woman saint with that name.

Also, the Orthodox tradition does not know the practice of giving more than one Christian name - I think it developed after the Mystery of Chrismation or Confirmation was separated from that of Baptism.

The Name-saint is also referred to as a "Guardian Angel" and one's Namesday is the "day of one's Angel." Only one per person and in the East Slavic tradition, as in others, this is followed by the patronym and then by the surname.

God bless,

Alexander Romanovych

David,

It can be confusing. I think there are actually few historic examples where the universal Church has said to a local Church: �You are mature enough to be your own patriarchate�. The usual way of creating a new patriarchate has been for that local Church to start acting like a patriarch and to inform the universal Church of its intentions and then wait until the Church formally acknowledges it. That�s really what�s happening in Ukraine. If the Byzantine / Greek Catholics in Ukraine didn�t lead the effort it simply would not happen. If the Greek Catholics who came to America a hundred years ago didn�t push for their own ecclesial structures I doubt that Rome would have ever created them and we would have been long gone.

If you look at the official website you will see that he refers to himself as His Beatitude Lubomyr Cardinal Husar. But many articles also refer to him as Patriarch Lubomyr. Those who do not feel it appropriate to use the title �patriarch� before it is recognized by Rome are free not to use it. In my own writings if I am quoting him I refer to him in whatever way he is listed in the document.

Admin

Alex,

I am aware of the tradition of choosing a name that begins with the first letter of one�s baptismal name but I seem to think that it was more common for the superior to assign a name to the new monastic.

Regarding the patriarch, I noted to David that he refers to himself as �Cardinal� and signs his documents that way. The press releases and news accounts of the UGCC use the phrase �Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC)�. The official biography of him uses �Lubomyr Husar, Major Archbishop and Cardinal.� Since he does not use the term �patriarch� to describe himself and does not use it in official documents but does use the term �cardinal� you must be careful to allow people the freedom to use the title they think appropriate.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

Yes, the Archimandrite/Ihumen needed to ratify the new monastic name (that always began with the same letter as the Christian name of the candidate) - another example "John Zelizo" became "St Job of Pochaiv."

The official documents of our Church do refer to "Cardinal Husar."

But the Patriarch himself NEVER refers to himself that way in public - just in writing or official documents.

And we NEVER refer to him as a Cardinal.

There is a good reason for that.

When Patriarch Josef the Confessor was around, Rome would try to suggest that the title of "Patriarch" was superfluous and that he already had the "highest honour" via "Cardinal."

We Ukies see "Cardinal" as a Latin bureaucratic term that relates to Rome and the election of a Pope.

It is therefore "foreign" to our Church tradition and we have no use for it also for the reason above.

Patriarch Lubomyr desires that Rome make good on its historic ecumenical rhetoric and formally recognize the Patriarchate of the Ukrainian Catholic Church and by not using the title in public, as he is doing, this is his way of putting pressure on Rome.

He does refer to himself as "Beatitude" (a Patriarch's or other Hierarch's title and not that of a Cardinal) and does not question others' use of "Patriarch." In fact, his Patriarchal Synod did declare him a Patriarch and now even our Basilian FAthers (who NEVER referred to Pat. Josef the Confessor as such) commemorate Patriarch Lubomyr in the liturgy.

They too NEVER refer to him as a Cardinal.

So it is simply a bureaucratic title that is part and parcel of his wider title - and is by no means anything of crucial significance to him or his Church.

You will recall that when he received the Cardinal's ring, he popped it into his pocket and then told the Italian press that we will only wear it when he is in Rome.

You know the adage, "When in Rome . . .?"

Would you call yourself a "Cardinal" if you were an Eastern hierarch who received the Red Hat?

And I know all this not only because I read it on the website of the UGCC, but also because I discussed it with some people DIRECTLY involved . . .

Alex

David,

It was an aside and a joking one at that. In discussing that you think he is Ruthenian, you mentioned that he was from Scranton. It sounded as though that was a consideration in your thinking.

PA is a stronghold of both the Ruthenians and the Ukrainians, as we all know. I was just joking about the fact that there are other Eastern Catholics there, too (think I even added a winking emoticon to emphasize the tongue-in-cheek nature of the comment).

I apologize for whatever misconstrual you think I made of your remarks and for however you feel I discounted your private conversations with your pastor.

Many years,

Neil

Note to Admin - can we get a tongue-in-cheek emoticon?

If this is true, I am deeply saddened beyond words.

I have great respect for Metropolitan Basil, but hearing this really disappoints me. I hope that this isn't the case.

If this is true, maybe he is being influenced by some of the Pittsburgh priests. Based on some conversations that I've had with some of them, probably 50% or more strongly oppose the married priesthood. Many of them seem to see mandatory celibacy as a badge of Catholicity.

I'm am praying to God that this report isn't 100% accurate (no offense KH), and that one day we will actually be an Eastern Church again.

In profound sorrow,
Anthony

According to international law, the Cardinal is a Prince of the Church, and as such ranks only behind emperors, kings, and crown princes, etc. As such, he is recognized to have full diplomatic status as a Prince of the Vatican City State.(Noonan, The Church Visible ) Granted this has nothing to do with the spiritual leadership of a Particular Church, but, at least in international law, this is more than just a "bureaucratic title".

David,

That styling was changed some years back to read "Cardinal Surname" or "Cardinal Name Surname". It was probably about 15 years ago.

Many years,

Neil

Not everywhere - must just be you informal Yanks

Here it is still very much"Thomas J Cardinal Winning "[ and we were no allowed to get it wrong ] and as at present "Keith Patrick Cardinal O'Brien"

But then of course our Bishops are addressed as My Lord and the Archbishops are Your Grace.

The troublesome Scot

Neil,

although it may have changed in everyday parlance, the protocol of Christian Name-Cardinal-Surname is still the official usage.

Neil,
I accept your apology and ask for you to forgive me also. I believe that we have gotten off on the wrong foot....

I have heard this too but I find it hard to believe when all Vatican reports still go by the old styling.

Not to mention that the offical website of the UGCC uses it also.


David, the Byzantine Catholic

Dear Deacon John Montalvo,

For the Eastern Church, the Cardinalate isn't held in as high esteem as it is elsewhere.

It is essentially "bureaucratic" because it is part of the bureaucracy of the inner workings of the Vatican and the Particular Church it represents. Particular EC Churches are in communion with Rome - that doesn't mean we need to be part of its internal organization.

This is also why that historic disgrace (for the Latin Church) called "the Congregation for the Eastern Churches" should have been dismantled (with apologies to the Eastern Churches included) long ago.

That is why Patriarch Lubomyr will gladly exchange his Cardinal's hat for official recognition of the Patriarchate of the UGCC.

And a Patriarch is more than a Cardinal. He is equal to other Patriarchs, like, say, the Patriarch of the West, even though there are "firsts" among equals.

Met. Andrew Sheptytsky, as I understand, refused the Cardinal's hat because for him the leadership and care of his own Particular flock was much more important than that Western honour.

When Pat. Josef the Confessor was made a Cardinal, we saw that as a Roman honour accorded to him personally.

It changed nothing for our Church in terms of securing its rights to govern itself as a Particular Church.

And the Cardinal's red can clash with the gold vestments of a Patriarch . . .

As for Emperors, kings and princes - the Ukrainian people haven't experienced a true friend in any one of these since the princely times of Kyivan Rus'.

So following our Patriarch Lubomyr's actions after he received the Cardinal's ring - keep your Cardinals in your pocket!

Alex

Dear Anthony (Dragani)

How good to hear from you!

Don't worry, Big Guy, you will always be welcomed as a married Eastern Catholic priest in the Particular Ukrainian Catholic Church of the Byzantine-Ukrainian Rite (Greco-Ruthenian).

And that's the Gospel truth . . .

Alex

Not to sound nasty or anything, but I find it hard to believe that a non-ukrainian would feel at home in then seminary for the UGCC. I also believe that not speaking ukrainian would also not be looked upon favorably.

For someone who wants to hold on to the ethnicity it strikes me as strange that you are not only welcoming but almost recruiting non-ukrainians.


David, the Byzantine Catholic

Dear David,

First of all, we have priests who are trained in all kinds of seminaries.

That's no problem.

We have English-language parishes and up here in nationalist Canada we have several parishes with English liturgies served by non-Ukrainian priests and deacons, including Oriental and Irish ones too.

More English parishes are on the way - it is inevitable and our Patriarch encourages that.

And as long as I speak Ukrainian, I'll hang on to my identity.

Otherwise I'll be seeing Anthony Dragani and perhaps yourself at the nearest English language UGC parish . . .

And if I could recruit you and Anthony for our Church, that really would be something, don't you think?

I'd have to think of something to ask of our Bishop as a reward . . .

Alex