www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Union with Rome reconsidered

And had Rome disappointed Moscow on this issue, don't you think there'd be a larger backlash in the other direction ?

Alex and Hritzko:

I just mean that I learned from his demeanor the difference between chauvinism and nationalism; my sensibilities remain Rusyn: byl, jesm, i budu.

Dear Lawrence,

So you mean that if Rome approved the UGCC Patriarchate, the ROC would start to view the RC church in Russia with suspicion, the Russian government would start to suspend priest's visas and refuse to legitimate new parishes etc?

HAVEN'T THEY BEEN DOING ALL THAT FOR SOME TIME NOW?

And what about the backlash of the democratic West against this ongoing dictatorial style of "democratic Russia?"

When are we just going to take a stand against totalitarianism, in Church or state?

Alex

Dear djs,

Oh!

Sorry!

Alex

Greetings all,

I think the letter writing campaign is useful, and don't stop at just one. It is often used by groups promoting the canonization of favorites, why not in favor of the Patriarchate?

If there is an annoyance factor to it, it should be tried.

I am planning to write my letters as soon as I know how to direct them.

Michael

Dear Michael,

"To His Holiness Pope John Paul II

Your Holiness,

Yadda-yadda-yadda,


I have the extreme honour of being Your Holiness' obedient servant,


Alex

Alex

I wasen't disagreeing with you. I just think that their would have been a rather large backlash had Rome gone the other way. Face it, the Vatican is still viewed with trepidation in various quarters of the Orthodox World, i,e, Georgia, Romania, Serbia, Greece not to mention Holy Mother Russia itself. But I do agree with you, it's a travesty.

Dear Laurence,

Both the Russian government and the ROC have indicated that there will be dire consequences for the Catholics (both rites) in the Russian Federation if the UGCC Patriarchate is established in Kyiv, Ukraine.

Ukraine will have a UGCC Patriarchate established within the next two years, with or without Rome's assistance. This will be a 'crowing' moment in the country's millennium old Christian tradition and a step in it's national rebirth. There is no turning back.

Russia will act on it's threats, as sure as I'm writing this post. It will be up to the global community to come to the deffence of the Catholics in Russia. The 'global' Orthodox churches will have the opportunity of either silently accepting the status quo, promoting the ROC's position, or comming to the deffence of the Catholics. They must look into their hearts and make the right decision.

Perhaps it's best to start preparing now.

What is a crowing moment? A rooster usually crows to inform us of sunrise - does our fellow correspondent regard the establishment of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Patriarchate in Kiev as the dawn of a new day?
Meanwhile, on writing to various hierarchs, one might consider different forms of complimentary closes:

1) beseeching Your Amplitude's holy and righteous prayers,

2) yet nourishing at the breasts of Holy Mother Church, I lie prostrate at the feet of Your Boundless Ineptitude, [that one is for use only in cases of dire emergency - but just picture the gymnastics involved!]

Incognitus

Slava Isusu Christu!

As a Carpatho-Rusyn Byzantine Catholic I am deeply encouraged by the Ukrainian Catholic Church's growth and struggle to achieve the Patriarchate; has anyone put up a petition website yet?

Alex, your passion for this subject is great! And as a veteran member of this forum it is great to see a relevant and pertinent subject being discussed. It seems, in these forums, subjects repeat eternally. Below is my analysis of the state of Eastern/Oriental Catholicism and the Ukrainian Patriarchate in light of the post-Conciliar Curia et al.:

Ecclesial Deconstructionism, the method of finding binaries, i.e. tradition vs. aggiornamento, and reversing them pragmatically in ecclesiastical praxis and polity: was used at Vatican II by progressives to deconstruct the structure of the Catholic Church and start a revolution. This fact has not only been supported in history, but also by the fruits of the said Council. Continuing to be a Catholic culture of denial NO longer works ergo continuing to be Eastern Catholic in denial also does NOT work. The work of deconstruction is NOT finished, and a medicocre form of damage control has been intiated by Rome by pulling back on the revolution: both liturgically and doctrinally.

My thesis is: Through the deconstruction of the doctrinal forms, definition, and ecclesiology defined by the Council of Trent not only by Vatican II, but also by the post-revolutionary Church the reason, purpose, and foundation for the Unias NO LONGER EXIST: except as pet examples of a long buried catholicity.

What does this say about me? Well that is in the works, however what it says about the Churches in communion with Rome is more pertinent. The only rationale' for a Ukrainian Catholic patriarchate in the post-aggiornamento construct is to be a forerunner to a united Orthodox Ukrainian Patriarchy. A middle ground CANNOT be reached, because a ecclesially reletavist position (That Vatican II de-authorized Trent and we are for a patristic position in Rome) is a part of the deconstructionist agenda; this agenda being to destroy ergo deconstruct the former structure to set up a "new" structure and a "new" Church. A return to the ecclessiology of Trent/VI by Rome is the only way the Unias can be justified; for when the purpose of the unias, to convert the "eastern dissidents", was deconstructed at Vatican II, and the anathema was lifted by Pope Paul VI the entire foundation of uniatism was destroyed; the only thing supporting the current structures is an appeal to old treaties, professions of faith and convenants; or in other words: remnants of the "old" ecclesiology.

Some would posit that a black and white mentality is innapropriate in regard to the above subject, however this is denial; and denial is an expression that one is not only unwilling to examine his or her beliefs, but also relegates one to "magical thinking", which deceives the believer into thinking his or her religious system is infallible and unchanging in spite of real-time evidenciary support. If we do not return to the "old wasteplaces" of Trent then ecclesially mature Eastern Catholic Churches, such as the Ukrainian Church, will eventually see no reason to stay with a weak and aenemic Rome; and the dying and immature sui juris Churches, such as the Byzantine/Ruthenian-Pittsburgh Metropolia will either be absorbed into the Ukrainian Patriarchate, fragment into numerous "schisms", or remain a relic of an pre-Conciliar Church that no longer exists and was deconstructed to disappear; thereby relegating it and similar sui juris Churches to be token symbols of catholicity that are neither taken seriously by the "new" Rome or its power structure; making our utility and purpose for existence, in the eyes of the Curia, as a way to deflect attention off of Rome while it sinks further away from what it has in common, liturgically and spiritually, with the Orthodox.

The only credible reason for our existence and seperation from our Mother Churches is Trent; without its ecclesiological paradigm and structure we will re-define ourselves into non-relevance and surely return to canonical Orthodoxy. However, with a counter-revolution in Rome and a reclamation of Trent Eastern Catholic Churches will have a foundation to justify their existence again, and resume their mission to convert the Orthodox; THIS is the historical and doctrinal reason for the Unias besides demonstrating the Catholicity of Rome. There is NO via media if we are to survive: that is if we want to. There can be no more DENIAL; that culture of denial is already destroying not only the Latin Church (i.e. the American Latin Church), but also is unraveling the fabric of our reason for seperation from Orthodoxy.

Humbly and Honestly in Christ,

Robert Andrei Horvath, Chief Sinner

The word in fact should be crowning and not crowing. Perhaps next time you could send me a private message indicating that there probably was a typo, and I will make the appropriate changes.

Thanks in advance for your understanding.

Hritzko

No, not this website. I should have been more clear, or just kept my big mouth shut.

Dear Hritzko - my apologies for my inadvertent criticism - what I thought you meant was that one motive for having a Patriarchate in Kiev was to crow about it. Alas, I can't send you a private message, because my particular variety of enrollment in the Forum does not permit it.
Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

Thanks for the follow-up. We certainly have no intention of 'crowing' about our Patriarch. The 'crowning' or our Orthodox Patriarch who will be in communion with Rome will be one of the, if not THE 'highlight' of the rebirth of Ukraine (Kyiv-Rus).

DJS posted some statistics regarding church attendance in Ukraine. 26% percent of the people never attend church but consider themselves 'Orthodox'. Sadly there probably is an even higher percentage of people who may attend once per year - that's it. These people clearly are not churched. Ukraine needs a Patriarch to help these people come back and live the Orthodox faith after decades of godless communism.

Dear Michael & Alex,

Michael, I would agree with you that a letter campaign is not worthless, but I agree with Alex that perhaps the Vatican may not be the best target. Some letters to various vatican bishops can't hurt. Perhaps sending them to your regional RC Cardinals, GOC bishops, and even U.S. government officials may be a better idea. Contact your local UGCC Patriarchal committee to get more information.

As Alex mentioned, things will never be the same either way. Now is time to make a difference.

Hritzko

Greg,

While Alex is correct, that stacks of letters to the Vatican (or any other such large institutional entity) are likely to result in a form letter response (prepared by the "constituent correspondence secretarial pool" or its ecclesiastical equivalent), such entities invariably maintain data on the nature of the letters (pro-con-who cares) and periodically report statistics (usually accompanied by some representative sample letters and by those which are somehow notable) to competent (or responsible - not necessarily the same :p ) authorities.

The advantage of letters over petitions is that it is much more difficult to mount a sham letter-writing campaign of any size than it is to produce a bogus petition.

As to directing such letters to local RC hierarchs, that strikes me as truly fruitless. The average RC bishop in the US or Canada has so much more on his mind than a UGCC Patriarchate that you can be certain of getting a form letter reply AND having your letter deposited into the diocesan archives, where it will be read with curiousity by some archivist in decades yet to come. GOC bishops are, to my mind, as unlikely a target audience - none are likely to call the EP or MP to breathlessly announce that they heard from a dozen Ukrainians who are really put-off by the attitude of the Orthodox Patriarchs to the idea of a Ukrainian patriarchate.

Finally, US governmental officials, particularly in an election year, are the most disinterested of all, unless their district is so suffused with Ukrainian voters that they see it as a springboard; few, if any, such electoral constituencies abound. And, who are they going to take the issue to? Rome?

Direct talk, from people who care, to people who have the decision in their hot little hands, is the only way that one can hope to have his or her isolated opinion count, by merging it with the opinions of the mass of other like-thinkers.

Many years,

Neil