www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Catholic Church in Orthodox Countries

Just for some perspective on the erection of a Latin province in Russia I list the following Orthodox countires with the Catholic jurisdictions there.

Belarus:
Latin:
1 Metropolitan Archdiocese
Belarusan-Byzantine:
1 Apostolic Visitator

Bulgaria:
Latin:
2 Diocese:
Byzantine-Bulgarian
1 Apostolic Exarchate

Cyprus:
Maronite:
1 Archeparchy

Georgia:
Latin:
Apostolic Administration

Greece:
Latin:
2Archdiocese immediately under Rome
2Metropolitan Archdiocese
4 Diocese
1 Apostolic Vicarate
Byzantine-Greek:
Apostolic Exarchate

Macedonia:
Latin:
1 Diocese
Macedonian-Byzantine:
1 Apostolic Exarchate

Moldova:
Latin:
1 Diocese

Romania:
Latin:
1 Archdiocese immediately under Rome
1 Metropolitan Archdiocese
4 Diocese
Romanian-Byzantine:
1 Metropolitan Archeparchy
4 Eparchy
Armenian:
1 Ordinariate

Russia:
Latin:
1 Metropolitan Archdiocese
3 Diocese
Russian-Byzantine
1 Apostolic Exarchate

Serbia:
Latin:
1 Archdiocese
1 Metropolitan Archdiocese
3 Diocese
1 Apostolic Administration

Ukraine:
Latin:
1 Metropolitan Archdiocese
3 Diocese
1 Apostolic Administration
Ukrainian-Byzantine:
1 Major Archeparchy
7 Eparchy
2 Archeparchial Exarchates
Ruthenian-Byzantine:
1 Eparchy
Armenian:
1 Archeparchy

I really fail to see what the problem is besides Inter-Church politics. Catholic jurisdictions exist in all these traditionally Orthodox countries, and I do not remember hearing any complaints (excepting the reemergence of the Byzantine Churches in Ukraine and Romania) or accusations of proselytizing. I also fail to see proof of it in Russia. Before the Communist takeover, there were about 1 million Latin Catholics almost exclusively of Polish, Lithuanian, and German ethnicity. The Latin Church in Russia today claims about 1 million again of those same ethnicity.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Dear Lance- Thank you very much for those figures and the work that went into getting them. They are enlightening.

God Bless,
Michael

Dear Lance,

Thanks for sharing a beam of light into what appears to be a murky situation!

Steve
JOY!

Dear Lance,

A further point is that the Ukrainian Orthodox in Ukraine (who have been excommunicated for refusing to be under the colonial strangle-hold of the Moscow Patriarchate any longer) have never been against the Catholic jurisdictions in Ukraine.

As a matter of fact, His Holiness Patriarch Filaret (with no apologies to those who feel he is not canonical!) even ENCOURAGED Ukrainian Orthodox to come out to the Papal Liturgies during Pope John Paul's visit to Ukraine and his statements to this effect were widely published.

Also, the Romanian Orthodox have a much better relationship with Rome than any Orthodox country, owing to their own cultural proximity to the West and some other factors.

The fact that Ukraine has Roman Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, Ruthenian Catholic and Armenian Catholic Particular Churches is a cause for joyous celebration in the Lord who has blessed us with all these Churches!

Alex

I agree with you. The comflict between the Moscow Patriarchate and Rome is not new (at least for the MP).
Moscow has had similar problems with the Romanian Patriarchate and broke relations with it (because the Romanian Church established a diocese in Moldova, where most of the believers are ethnic Romanians, and Moscow claims that Modova still belongs to Russia); in Ukraine with the UGCC /we all know why); with the Ecumenical Patriarchate (because Moscow granted autocephally to the churches instead of the EP and doesn't respect the primacy of the EP). So, I believe that the conflict between Rome and the MP is not the end of the dialogue between catholics and orthodox (it's just a local problem)

Dear Remie,

You have given an excellent and fair assessment.

I say this not ONLY because you agree with me .

You have hit the nail on the head. The authority of Churches in Eastern Europe is such that things that we in the West consider of such small significance, such as the setting up of an Eparchy by another Church or Patriarchate etc., actually decide later political and national outcomes.

May this current impasse be speedily resolved, by hook or by crook, and may there be peace among the Churches!

Have a great weekend!

Alex

[ 02-15-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

By hook or by crook! Plot written by the One Who Writes Straight with Crooked Lines; May even this lead us to wonder at His Wisdom and Power.

Amen!

Maybe this point of view is too liberal, but very few people have thought about this:

The recent dispute between Rome and Moscow might not be too bad because Moscow's view of the Catholic Church has changed. The MP claims that the Soviet Union is its cannonical territory, that's why the Patriarch broke with the Romanian Church (because of the Moldovan dioceses)and has had troubles with other orthodox jurisdictions... and now with Rome because of the same reason.
So the MP is showing that it doesn't see the Catholic Church just as "another denomination" (like the American sects) and when Alexei II claims that the evangelization of the former USSR must be done by his jurisdicion and that the evangelization of the West (Poland, Czech...) corresponds to the Rome, it (might) imply that the MP recognizes a "union" "de facto", and that Rome is also a jurisdiction (like Romania, Constantinople) and not a different religion or denomination (like the protestant).

"---it (might) imply that the MP recognizes a "union" "de facto", and that Rome is also a jurisdiction (like Romania, Constantinople) and not a different religion or denomination (like the protestant)."


Amen. Amen.

The fuss is tantamount to an authoritative recognition by the Russian Orthodox Church that the Catholic Church embodies the fullness of Christ's Church, but not necessarily it's completeness. That leaves administrative problems as the primary and operative source of the schism.

The shepherds didn't officially pronounce the existence of the schism 'til long after the sheep separated into two flocks -- maybe, as the sheep start cavorting with one another and form one flock, the shepherds will officially, but long afterward, announce the reconciliation.

Pax

Didn't the Russian Patriarch recently send a choir to sing at the Vatican?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Latin Lurker:

" That leaves administrative problems as the primary and operative source of the schism."

And the key administrative problem (from the Orthodox perspective) is expressed as dogma by the Catholic Church: papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, and papal supremacy.

It certainly will require some creative thinking to overcome that obstacle, if it can be overcome.

MI Pat

Dear Friends,

We should also remember, however, that the recent Vatican action with respect to Russia is tantamount to a declaration of "invasion" by Church into that Orthodox country.

Rome has held off doing this sort of thing, that it well knows is something that would dis the Orthodox, until now, for whatever reason. Perhaps Rome has grown impatient.

But if the MP comes to the bargaining table with Rome now, it will not do this in some sort of spirit of "ecumenism," but because Rome is now holding a gun to its head.

Let us also remember that the Vatican's action also speaks ill of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Theologically, our Churches are simply "there and what can we do about them?"

The existence of Orthodox Churches in Italy or other Western countries isn't a good comparison to what is happening in Russia because these Orthodox Churches aren't posing the threat of parallel jurisdictions as Rome is doing, under whatever jurisdictional name it chooses, in Russia.

Russian Catholics can only hope to continue to exist under their RC ordinaries, they will not be organized into their own Particular Church, nor will they be allowed to be with the Ukrainian Catholic "Patriarch" of western Ukraine (I put this word in parentheses only because he is not so recognized outside his jurisdiction).

Alex

[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

ALex,

I am not sure what you are saying.

The Catholic Church has re-established a dioceasn structure in Russia ( whcih it had before 1924 and its supression by the Communists) to care for the actual and existing Roman Catholic community in Russia.

I understand the point that every action must consider the ecumencial implication with the Orthodox Church.

I understand that even on matter where the Catholic Church does not find the Orthodox authorities position valid, we still need to consider the impact.

I don't udnerstand that the recent Catholic action is objectively wrong.

K.

Alex,

I understand on an emotional level why the Orthodox are upset. Yet looking at things objectively does Moscow really have a valid complaint? I say no for several reasons.
First I believe in the freedom of any person to believe and worship as they choose. While this may be a new concept to Russia it is one I think they are going to have to embrace.
Second, as I have shown, there has historically been a formal Catholic structure in Russia and other Orthodox countires without any serious impact on the Orthodox Church in that country, excepting the Unions.
Third, I have yet to see any proof that the Latin Church in Russia has been proselytizing just as I have seen no proof of ongoig violence by Ukrainian Catholics against Orthodox in Ukraine.

I also fail to see why the MP believes diocesan structure makes proselytism any more likely than when the Latin Church was organized as Apostolic Administrations. It seems to me that the Pope has made every attempt to allay fears of the Orthodox. The naming of the diocese for Saints rather than of existing Orthodox diocese being one and, as you mention, his unwillingness to re-erect Byzantine jurisdictions for the Russians or Belarusans or even name bishops for them, despite numerous petitions from these groups to do so.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate