www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Benefits of union with Rome

Cizinec: I think your statements on this thread are
right. I think, that we just wanted to be ourselves and keep our ways. Time and our minority status has taken a tool, but we really haven't done such a terrible job in holding to our Ruskij viry.

Dear djs,

Well, I don't think I've said anything about Rome that is not based on its own unfair actions.

And I would never criticize the Pope - only the Vatican minions who seem to know more about our Churches and ecclesial business than we do - or think they do.

Actually, your point on the UGC setting up churches in Eastern Ukraine is simply playing up to the Vatican double-standard in this respect.

Rome wanted the UGCC to remain "localized" in western Ukraine - again so as not to offend the Orthodox - and this despite the fact of the existence of Ukrainian Catholics in Kyiv and Greater Ukraine.

So you would rather they attend Roman Catholic churches (which they won't) rather than their own EC churches?

Rome has also told the UGCC not to have any dealings with Ukrainian Orthodox other than those in communion with Moscow. Yeah, right!

My point is precisely the Vatican double-standard.

If Rome does its own internal business in Russia without consulting with the ROC, why does this not apply to the UGCC?

Why does Rome slap the Orthodox with one hand and then try to carress them with the other at the expense of the UGCC?

If you know why, I think there are many here who would love to find out!

In any event, the UGCC is already acting as a de facto patriarchate.

And our relationship with Rome has been defined by our Patriarch as one of "Eucharistic Communion."

The Roman Patriarchate is equal to the Ukrainian Patriarchate.

But Rome is the first among equals, to be sure.

Alex

Alex,

I understand and I lament your position. I would think that, had the Moscow Patriarchate not fallen to some of the same temptations of power to which (I believe) Rome yielded, this would not be an issue.

I don't think that every nation-state should get their own patriarch based on ethno-nationalism, but considering the history of Kyiv and the attitude of the MP, I don't see any other alternatives.

There is just anarchy in the Eastern Christian world. It's not the first time, but it's no fun.

Obviously, being in union with Rome hasn't helped this sort of chaos.

Hopefully we'll all see the issue with Ukraine and Russia satisfactorily resolved in our lifetimes.

djs,
Yes I would aggree! A lot of people whine about the past, because they cannot live in the present.
Its always easier to blame someone else than to do something yourself.
Stephanos I
Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the Serpent and so forth and so forth.

Dear Cizinec,

Certainly there is nationalism involved.

It exists in Russia, Greece, Poland and everywhere.

And certainly the Kyivan Christian tradition is one in which other churches and nations share in!

Kyiv has a much stronger claim than Moscow to a patriarchate.

Moscow's claim is that of the usurper, when one gets right down to it - it has taken over, it says, the "St Andrew heritage" of Kyiv.

In fact, this is why even a Kyivan Orthodox patriarchate will never be accepted by Moscow due to its belief there can be only one descendant of the St Andrew heritage.

But it already has a patriarchate and no one is going to take it away from them (who would want to try?)

Alex

Daer Father Stephanos,

So you think that when Eastern Catholic patriarchs, including His Beatitude Lubomyr, and others have critiqued the history of our relationship with Rome and the Catholic Church, they are whining?

And can you share some further pearls of wisdom regarding the CONTEMPORARY situation? Or do you believe that internal affairs of the Eastern Catholic Churches should be decided by what the Orthodox think?

It is you, sir, who are whining to Rome's uncritical defence. And it is you who refuse to recognize what is going on around you in the present (two weeks ago, as a matter of fact).

Alex

Coalesco,
#1
Not ALL decisions of an Oecumenical Counicl are infallible
#2 Even infallible statements can be further clarified but not altered.
Stephanos I

So even though the Latin Church believes that Rome, namely the Pope has universal jurisdiction, that does not mean that this point cannot be further clarified.
As can be seen from the Holy Fathers offer to others for dialogue.

Alex,

Doesn't that put the EP in a rather difficult situation? He doesn't have the power to reign in Moscow and this doesn't really provide him with any benefits.

On the other hand, Rome isn't going to win any points by accepting the title of Patriarch as valid for Ukraine. The MP will make sure plenty of RC churches are closed as punishment.

Am I correct in saying that what is needed is a humble and (dare I say) Christian MP who is willing to work with Ukraine on the status of the patriarche of Kyiv and what that means for Russia and all Slavs? It seems to me that Russia and Orthodoxy would have a lot to gain by being reasonable.

Rome, on the other hand, could end up with most of Ukraine in communion, but will have to allow persecution of RCs in Russia. I'm not sure if Rome thinks the entirety of Ukraine is worth a single Latin.

Alex,

I don't recall much of a flap if any over the new eparchies in Ukraine. Certainly not like the RC diocese in Russia, which you yourself (speaking) of double standards criticized relentlessly. I support both actions.

I think that the UGCC is doing exactly the right thing, in moving ahead with its own Patriarchial identity. In time other churches, Rome and perhaps Moscow, will catch on to the reality and advance their recognition of it. This is the historical way isn't it? I think that Rome, in its ecumenist bent, is very solicitous about being seen as "creating" a Patriarchate, rather than recognizing the fact of its existence. But to do the latter requires consolidation of that fact.

Dear djs,

In actual fact, I never criticized the "fact" of the RC diocese in Russia, but only the way in which it was brought about.

(Our UGCC bishops have also criticized Rome's refusal to allow Russian Catholics their own organization in Russia for fear of offendig the Orthodox - where does Rome draw the line on giving such offense?)

And I have, and will, criticize the double standard that remains in place when you compare how Rome treats its own matters and then turns around and approaches the Orthodox to see "what they will think" about the UGCC patriarchate.

If what Rome has done and is doing is fair and just, in your view, then I repent of my criticism and obvious disloyalty and submit . . .

I apologise for coming back here only to upset you and others on this matter.

I shouldn't have and I will cease and desist.

Alex

Alex,

I am not upset by any means.

But I do have a different perspective. And yes I am even a yellow dog democrat, who also disagrees with you monarchial tendencies. See, there is real diversity within our communion!

I off on a trip. Later.

Alex,

I can't imagine that what you have said should offend others. It is simply your view and experience.

Further, it is valuable experience for those of us trying to understand the situation.

I don't think what you are saying is offensive. If someone finds what you are saying as offensive and what you are saying is the truth, then you shouldn't stop.

Dear Cizinec,

Perhaps you are right.

But if the Moscow patriarchate had the authority, even through the secular arm, to close down all the RC parishes, it would have done so before now.

The RC Church is definitely seen as an "internal enemy" that is in Russia to proselytize and destroy Russian Orthodox culture etc. etc. etc.

For a number of reasons, I just don't see Moscow ever coming into communion with Rome. From the MP's point of view, it is Rome that has lost out by being heretical and cut off from the True Church.

From Orthodoxy's point of view, it is left to Rome to approach it and find its way back to the True Church. Only after that happens will the Orthodox East tell the Pope what he can and cannot do by way of jurisdiction etc.

And Rome probably won't agree to such conditions or terms of reunion.

And if something could be worked out, great.

But the ROC has already TOLD Rome that the very presence of the UGCC is a stumbling block to ecumenical ties and discussion. Does Rome think the MP is kidding? It ain't kidding!

And the situation in Ukraine and Russia is rather outside the whole Vatican-Moscow affair to begin with.

Yes, it involves an age-old struggle between two Churches representing two peoples - the Vatican surely cannot pretend it is only on the religious plane, can it?

There is no real separation of church and state over there.

There are many Ukrainians who are alienated from the Churches as a whole and 25% of those who say they are "Orthodox" also say they don't belong to any jurisdiction.

It is up to the Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox churches to do the "churching" there, not Rome or Moscow.

The issue of a Ukie Patriarchate in Ukraine is those people's business.

If Rome wants to be so ecumenical with Moscow, then it should simply disown the UGCC and tell it to leave for it has bigger fish to fry.

Ecumenical agreements between Elder Rome and the Third Rome will undoubtedly involve hurting the UGCC and the move for an autocephalous UKie Orthodox patriarchate that would be recognized as canonical.

There is no easy solution to this. But Roman recognition of a Ukie patriarchate surely could not hurt Rome-Moscow relations any more than Rome has already hurt them of its own volition.

And ultimately, what would be wrong with Rome telling Moscow to recognize religious diversity in what was its FORMER backyard, grow up and learn to live in the real, pluralist world?

Wouldn't that be better than having Rome sign on the dotted line of a paper prepared at the Danilovsky Monastery?

Alex

Dear djs,

Well, I found a lot of "regalness" in the funeral of your President Reagan last week!

Good for America, that's the way!!

But the U.S. honours its head of government as its head of state at the same time - something that led to the Civil War and can lead to other complications.

But if the head of state is a ceremonial position in a lot of countries, then why not have a ceremonial, constitutional monarch?

Alex

I think I posted this a week or two ago. It's from St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica (see, there I go again with my Latin tendencies):

Jason