Dear Neil,
Actually, I wanted to defend my earlier statement about Pope Pius XII . . .
I know that he was a great defender of the Eastern Catholics through those who, especially during the war, were helped by him.
I think that papal statements are important, but that they don't give a comprehensive view of all that a pope does.
So what if Vatican II produced copious statements about "Sui juris" Eastern churches et alia?
How have these well-wishing statements changed the way Eastern Catholic Churches govern themselves?
Have they contributed to a lessening of the Vatican strangle-hold on that?
No, not at all, to be Frank (
).
Judging by the way Rome deals with the UGCC, it is as if the Union of Brest occurred yesterday and Pope Boniface VIII was still alive.
Rome today has many good intentions toward the Eastern Catholic Churches as expressed in statements.
But everything the EC's have are things they must themselves affirm, often in the face of Roman unwillingness to acknowledge for them.
Whether Pope Pius XII called the EC's "Rites" or "Churches" is of lesser consequence than what he DID on their behalf, how he acted in certain situations ie. with respect to Met. Andrew Sheptytsky and his role in spreading Eastern Catholicism throughout Ukraine and Russia.
The Vatican of today is doing all it can to PREVENT Russian Catholics from having their own Eastern jurisdiction.
Pope Pius XII was not cowed by either Soviet communism or by church authorities that served its interests.
It was more to the point that Pius XII considered EC's to be on an exactly equal footing with RC's and treated them accordingly, something the RC churches in Eastern Europe often refused to do.
In that holy Pope's case, I think we need to judge him by his actions, rather than against the backdrop of current Vatican rhetoric on the Eastern Churches that doesn't get implemented into action.
I think you woe Pope Piux XII an apology, Friend.
Now just get down on your knees and . . . (
).
God bless,
Alex
