www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization ByzanTEEN so what' the deal...

Dear UkrainianCatholic,

Yes, hehehe!

It won't happen, believe me - politics, politics, politics.

It is interesting to note that one of the aspects of the Anglican revival in the 19th century was a movement against the use of pews in Church.

John Mason Neale, someone who translated many Eastern Church services into English (e.g. the Akathist to the Passion of our Lord), also wrote a commentary against the use of pews as going against the practice of good religion.

Alex

Ye of little faith!

It will happen one day. All that we need is for our church to have another great Patriarch that will complete what His Beatitude Joseph I started.

I didn't get a chance to go to for the Papal visit (oh, how I wish I could have been there), but just seeing it on TV was so moving! It truly was a spectacular event which happened without incident. Maybe you should start a new thread and talk about the visit. I would be interested in hearing more about it.

Daniil

Daniil,
I think Patriarch Lubomyr will be really good(and is) . He is a family a friend. He used to be at St. Basil's in Stamford teaching there. My uncle was taught by him and my cousin who is also my late Godfather was rector of the seminary at St. Basil's for some 20 years and Fr. Husar was vice rector for a time. Going thru some of the old family year books, I found out that the clean shaven Fr. Husar taught Ukrainian and was moderator of the Byzantine club with one of the Galadza's as student president. I also saw Robert Moskal in the year books along with many other future priests. Baba always knew him as Fr. Lubko. Well I have heard from some people that he is one of the most repected and not to mention of the holiest cardinal's around. With our new sobor-cathedral being built in Kyiv is great because the he can be Patriarch of Kyiv and all Rus'-Ukraine.
-ukrainiancatholic

Hey,

I only saw him on EWTN and it increased my faith. It was soooooo awesome! I think feeling the faith and hunger of the people gathered there. Those that made great sacrifices to get there. It was neat!

Rose

Yes, he is also a family friend. I was on the "team" that had to travel with him around Galicia twice a week to do Hierarchical Liturgies. In fact, I accidentally pulled on his beard while vesting him once!

Now, with reagards to the new Sobor being built in Kiev: you are right that he will then be able to legitimately call himself Patriarch of Kiev and All Rus'-Ukraine, but the structure is hideous!!! What a shame! Now everyone in Ukraine wants to build modern, but all of their modern plans are ugly and fall apart faster than churches which have been standing for hundreds of years. I think we should start a petition here to have them reconsider the plans.

Daniil

+AMDG+

I greatly simpathize with the problem of hideously modern churches. I have heard rumors that they are going to wreckovate the Local Roman Rite parish (over 100 years old). Well if they do, I oiled my chaines last night. They should fit nicely around me and the altar rail. Hehehe.

Joe Zollars

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Maybe with removing pews one's parish should start by taking out the kneelers and then every other pew, making space to properly prostrate. Do this before the Great Lent and explain why, then slowly start taking more and more out.

IC XC NIKA,
-Nik!
Your Catholic Web Portal & Forum! [yourcatholic.com]

Dear Daniil,

It's "Kyiv" not "Kiev!"

Is Patriarch Lubomyr forcing the issue with his title right now? Or is he working on Rome to officially recognize it? Is there a difference in terms of emphasis with him?

Ultimately, it would be good for some sort of relationship to develop between the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Orthodox in Ukraine where an Orthodox Patriarchate could witness to a symbolic unity, if not a full one, between the churches.

The business of a cathedral in Kyiv so Patriarch Lubomyr could call himself "of Kyiv" sounds a bit triumphalistic - and unrealistic - to me.

Alex

Everybody calls him Patriarch. In Ukraine, it's not really an issue. However, I'm sure he would like to be recognized by Rome with that title.

The Church in Ukraine is in good standing with the Orthodox, especially with the Autocephalous and the KP. They are also friendly with the MP but mainly on a bishop to bishop level.

Having a Cathedral in Kyiv makes sense. His title still technically is "Metropolitan of Kyiv and Galicia", so it isn't as if he's trying to get something that's not his already. It also makes sense since it is the capital. If, in the 1800s, we were allowed to have the Metropolitan in Kyiv, we would have, but it wasn't allowed. You can say that he was in exile in Lviv.

Daniil

Dear Alex and Danill:

In regards to the title Patriarch, it's a moot point. Pius X gave Patriarchal powers to Metropolitan Andrei, Patriarch Joseph formaly used the title during his life, and the Ukrainian faithfull normaly use the title.

Considering Patriarch Lubomyr's personal history, I think that he is just patiently waiting for events to unfold.

It is my personal opinion, based on what I have heard from various sources, that everything has been decided upon and that Rome and Patriarch Lubomyr are just waiting for the right moment to formaly define the title.

Having a Cathedral in Kyiv is the Patriarch's right. Kyiv is his title and in his person he maintians true apostolic succession to the ancient metropolitanate.


defreitas

[ 02-25-2002: Message edited by: defreitas ]

Dear Daniil and defreitas,

I never said he shouldn't have a cathedral in Kyiv!

To argue that he should ONLY on the grounds that the Orthodox Metropolitan of Kyiv signed the union of Brest is, in my view, not a good argument given the conditions today where everyone seems to agree that the Unia was a Roman blunder.

The fact that Patriarch Slipyj used the title means, unfortunately, "squat."

He used the title often in direct disobedience to Pope Paul VI.

Also, the use of the title "Patriarch" in the Ukrainian Catholic Church is only general in those parishes which are of "Pro-Orthodox" orientation (as Reader Sergius would have said if he were still with us . . .).

Many, many parishes do not use "Patriarch" and that division in our Church still continues.

In addition, and as someone who worked in the Patriarchal movement for years before you were even born, Daniil , so what if Rome recognizes the title?

Does that mean we would have more autonomy? Could the Patriarch order married priest, canonize his own saints and otherwise exercise his authority in TRUE Eastern Orthodox fashion while in union with Rome?

Uh, no, really . . .

The fact is that Ukrainian parishes are of two minds - one type sees the Pope as its immediate Patriarch and the other sees Patriarch Lubomyr as such.

I don't know how this would change by Rome's approval of a title.

Right now, however, as we can see, Rome has its hands full in Moscow with the Orthodox.

Relations there have hit an all time low with demonstrations etc.

This isn't a real priority for Rome - it hasn't been and probably won't be, in all honesty.

Alex

What do you mean?!
If Rome recognizes the title, it may not immediately change the things you mentioned, but it would raise the status of our Church from one that is a pretender to the Patriarchate to an actual Patriarchate. It would look good. It would bring a bit more unity to our Church.

I hope you weren't involved in the "sacking" during the ordination of present Eparch of Stamford. I witnessed a sacking myself, and it's not very pleasant.

Daniil

[ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: Daniil ]

Dear Alex:

Formal recognition of the title of Patriarch by Rome would only be one part of the actual formality.

With any recognition there would also have to be a defintion of what the title actually means.

That could in itself be a major stumbling block.

As to actual use, as opposed to legal use of the nomenclature, in my oppinion each parish is open to interpret the issue as it sees fit.

I think that the Patriarch said as much a short time ago when commenting on the unofficial use of the title by the faithfull. He stated that he knew people used the title against his wishes, but that he would not force people to stop using the term.

With all things, patience is a virtue and time mends all.

May God Bless us.


defreitas

[ 02-26-2002: Message edited by: defreitas ]

Dear Daniil:

What exactly is a "sacking"?

Inquiring minds want to know.


defreitas

Dear Daniil and Jose,

First of all, the only "sacking" I've ever participated in had to do with a prank when I was a teenager.

The title of Patriarchate for Kyiv is something that will make a statement that Rome may or may not want to make.

Please remember that I worked in the Patriarchal movement before Daniil was born and when Jose was still young too .

If we look at this from the ecclesial perspective only, well, then yes what's the problem?

From other ecumenical and political perspectives, the problem is great.

Moscow has always claimed to be the true heir of the St Andrew and St Volodymyr traditions of Kyiv.

The Metropolitans of Kyiv moved northwards to protect themselves against foreign attack and eventually Moscow took over the position of the Kyivan primacy and developed its notion of being a "Third Rome."

The Ukrainian Catholic Church under Patriarch Josef Slipyj affirmed not its "right" to the title, but the actuality of its status as a Patriarchate EVEN WITHOUT ROME'S APPROVAL.

Patriarch Slipyj received the title and declared it to be valid. He only sought Rome's official approval of it, not Rome's granting of it.

This must be understood at the outset. The approach of Patriarch Lubomyr is similar, although he wants Rome to officially recognize the title before formally using it himself.

But to affirm this title is to affirm the right of Kyiv, not Moscow, to the St Andrew tradition.

The Pope has said that other Churches can share in the St Andrew/St Volodymyr tradition of Kyivan Christianity.

But that won't wash with Moscow, who sees the "Kyivan Churches" (Catholic and Orthodox) as belonging to its jurisdiction, although they are in rebellion.

Rome is already in deep trouble with Moscow and needs to find a way out. Proclaiming the Kyivan Patriarchate for Ukrainian Catholics may not be high on their priority list right now - that's all I'm saying.

In addition, a Catholic Patriarch who is dependent on Rome is really not the same as an Orthodox Patriarch in terms of rights and powers.

That is the reality, my friends.

Certainly, we can have a feisty Patriarch like His Holiness Patriarch Lubomyr.

But his hands will be tied by Rome and his efforts to free himself and his Church will cause friction and conflict - inevitably.

The theological and ecclesiological sides to this story are important.

But they don't write the whole book.

Alex