www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Should Kyr Lumobyr Boycott Conclave

In response to Rome's position on the UGCC Patriarchate, should His Beatitude Kyr Lubomyr boycott the next Conclave?

I look forward to your thoughts.

Yours,

hal

I am not sure, do you mean for the next Papal election? It could depend on a lot of other things that might be happening at the time, it certainly would be a symbolic gesture noted by the press. If it meant the possible election of an extreme Ultramontanist in reaction I wouldn't like to see it happen.

Just my opinion here but I do feel that this is the time to be very vocal, but may not be a good time to be absent from a conclave. I think that the presence of Patriarch Slipyj at V-II, in combination with the other eastern Patriarchs had an enormous influence on the entire church.

I see most of the rank and file Roman Catholics, who are very numerous, are totally naive about the 21 other Sui Iuris churches in the communion (this naivete' extends into the clergy to some extent, I'm sure). Most people are quite pleased and proud of the resurrection of the UGCC, and wish it success. They see it as a reafirmation of their own Catholicism. However they really don't know what it is like to be a Catholic of another Sui Iuris church. Like the designation Personal Prelature (used only for Opus Dei), the designation Sui Iuris church leaves some people scratching their heads in confusion!

If you read the threads on other Catholic boards you are likely to find all manner of misconceptions bandied about by the regular posters and the moderators, it would drive you to distraction! What I am getting at is that if Patriarch Lubomyr were to act with more overt independence it would surprise and perplex the average Roman Catholic who would be looking for a simple explanation for this "behavior". They might learn things they were never told before.

Rome knows quite well the demoralizing effect the loss of up to 6 million Greek Catholics would have on the Rank and file of the Roman church, who have been disillusioned a great deal lately.

So if Rome takes the possibility of losing the UGCC church seriously it will react in any way that will prevent that from happening. I think that this is the time to be very vocal with an "in your face" attitude. More public appearances, more press releases. Headlines like Patriarch Luybomyr of K'yiv to visit Patriarch John Paul II, Pope of Rome, that sort of thing.

Michael

Patriarch Joseph never attended a conclave - by the time that Pope Paul VI flew off into the empyrean, Patriarch Joseph was over 80, so he was unable to attend either that conclave or the one that followed a month later.
But deliberately staying away to express one's annoyance is another matter - I would not recommend it, even though it's wildly unlikely that the one vote would make any difference. What I would suggest is that future Patriarchs / Major Archbishops should not accept the Cardinalate in the first place; it is incompatible with their own dignity and the dignity of the Churches which they head.
Incognitus

For me, while I understand and am sympathetic to the sentiments, I too have some reservations about boycotting, mostly because they presume our presence at the Papal Conclave.

As a rule, I do not think we should be at the Conclave, just as representatives of other Churches, sister Churches though they may be, venerable Churches though they may be, should not be at our Conclave.

Let the Latins elect their patriarch without outside interference.

And let us elect our own Patriarchs without outside interference.

Herb

Yes you are correct - we should not boycott. But he should come dressed as a Patriarch - as did Patriarch Josif Slipij.
In fact why did he accept the Cardinalate when he knew that a Patriarchate was in the works ?
Did he accept it because he had enough faith in Rome to elevate him to Patriarch as per the UGCC synod's wishes ?
A poster had mentioned that once he was elected by the UGCC synod, they could have given him the title of Patriarch and reported this accordingly to Rome. Rome would have had to accept it. Can anyone confirm or deny this statement. Why can't the synod do the same again, but this time say - "look Vatican curia - if you can't or will not do it - we will" ?
Why did he wear that monks outfit instead of those worn by a byzantine bishop when he accepted the Cardinalate ?

Hritzko

Because a typical Byzantine bishop's non-liturgical vesture IS a monk's outfit. Riassa, mantya, klobuk/koukoul... all these are parts of the traditional Byzantine monastic vesture. What I recall Vladyka Lubomyr wearing to the occasion was a black riassa, a black monastic mantya (with the "stripes" and icons of a hierarchical mantya), a black koukoulion (which was the typical monastic and by extension episcopal head covering prior to the adoption of the kamilavka/klobuk... just look at my little icon!) and a panagia. He also carried a walking staff, I believe. I think the reasons for this particular vesture were three-fold.

First, to make a point to the Romans, he wore ALL black and did not receive the cardinal's biretta (I can't recall if he received a ring or not). He didn't dress like a Roman or try to match the Roman color with his Eastern vesture (as the Coptic cardinal did). He probably wanted to stress his "Eastern-ness" and his dislike for unnecessary Latinization. Wearing all black and not accepting the Latin cardinal insignia is like saying, "Thanks for the honor, but first and foremost I am head of the UGCC." It also made him stand out a lot, and let everybody take notice.

Second, due to the immense publicity of the event, he didn't want to be branded a "vostoknik" or a "Latinjak," and wearing either a klobuk (black or white), a purple kolpak, a skufia, or a white koukoul with seraphim :p would definately make waves. If he went bareheaded, they might have plopped a biretta on his head.

Third, he seems to be a very humble fellow. He dressed simply as a monastic just to say, "I am what I am. Take me or leave me."

Those are just my speculations.

Dave

Asking someone who has no reason to know the answer why someone else dresses in a particular way is seldom a useful exercise. If one wants to know why Patriarch Lubomyr does or doesn't wear any particular item of apparel, the sensible thing to do is ask the Patriarch himself. On the other hand, I also don't know whether the Patriarch is given to snappy retorts (I doubt it, but I can't say for sure), so one would risk such a come-back as "how soon do you need to know?".
However, I am not entirely without helpful ideas. On at least one occasion, a photographer managed to snap a picture of the personage in question wearing the klobuk and rason. Since there is this documentary proof, it becomes legitimate to commission a nicely-painted portrait showing Patriarch Lubomyr thus attired, have prints made of the portrait, and propagate them as widely as possible. Now wouldn't that be fun?
Incognitus

You are correct. Who knows, maybe everything else was at the cleaners.

Hritzko

Dear Dave,

Thanks for that very comprehensive answer. I guess you learn new things every day.

Your idea that he wore the hood so that they could not put a biretta on his head is very good. I would bet that this was part of the plan.

He did receive a Cardinal's ring but he did not put it on his finger. As soon as he got it he put it in his pocket. He never wears it.

Again, thanks for that info.

Hritzko

It's not information per se. It's my personal speculation. BIG difference.

Dave

Dear Friends:

Speaking of dress codes, has anyone ever seen the photograph of Patriarch Josef wearing the gallero (the large red hat with the tassels)?

I have seen the picture and really don't understand why he has it on.

The hat was used only at the investiture of a Cardinal, and then just touched to his head.

Most Cardinals just hang the hat from the rafters of their Cathedrals as a symbol of the conferred dignity.

The picture is black and white but tonally it looks like he could be wearing a red cassock, riassa, and hood.

Can anyone confirm this?


defreitas

Dear Jose,

Yes, I have that picture somewhere - he wore the "full nine yards" as a Cardinal on that occasion.

Alex

You have got to love a guy who will sacrifice all personal dignity for the sake of his suffering People.

I think he saw it not an honour to his person, but as a recognition of his martyred Church.


defreitas

Defreitas,

There is a commerative book with multiple color pictures of Patriarch Josyf in the combo patriarch/cardinal vesture. He has a red koukolion, red riassa, and tops it off with the galero. The Byzantine Seminary has a copy of the book, next time I'm there I'll get the title of it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I came across this book at the Ukrainian Museum-Archives in Cleveland. I do recall that Patriarch Josef did not look pleased. I know a big, bright smile would not have been appropriate, but this was one of those looks that could at least maim, if not worse.

Nemo Nos Diliget Non Curamus