www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News ROC not happy about GC Exarchate

Dear Alex:

I have come to realize more than ever that it is not the Pope who is the problem.

Rather, it is the knee-jerk self-preservationist actions of the Roman Curia. It is, after all, the oldest continuously functioning institution on Earth - even pre-dating the Church.

Still, do you not think that if the early 1990's conspiracy between the Curia and the MP was to come to the forefront, would not even the staunchest pro-Rome member of the UGCC re-examine his/her views? I would sure hope so. Otherwise, what's the point, n'est pas?

I heard a story recently. John the XXIII was once asked, "How many Cardinals work with Your Holiness in the Roman Curia."

The Pontiff thought for a moment and then replied, "about half of them."

Yours,

hal

Dear Hal,

Actually, there are UGCC'ers who would DENY this, even if presented with evidence etc.

But I shouldn't say too much - I'm going to be a principal at a Catholic school . . .

Alex

Hal,
your post interests me because I posted a few weeks back in reference to the pedophile scandal asking about Rome and I'm beginning to think that only converts question Rome.Somehow I think cradle Catholics don't care much about what happens in Rome. Just an observation

Peace

Shouldn't the Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus appoint an Exarch upon the recommendation of the synod of the Russian Exarchate?

After all, we Easterners are the ones who make the Pope "Catholic" and not just "Roman".

I think the UGCC should just appoint their patriarch and let "Rome" respectfully of course,as I am always respectful of Rome, smoke Borscht.
Stephanos I

Some days, I think Rome has already smoked a few too many organic compounds.

TL,

Strictly from the point of view of Roman legalism, the head of the UGCC, be he styled Major-Archbishop or Patriarch, can't do that. The Armenians, Syrians, Maronites, and Melkites have Patriarchal Exarchates and the UGCC does have Archepiscopal Exarchates, but the two Russian canonical jurisdictions, Moscow and Harbin, were erected (and are extant, though vacant) as "Apostolic" Exarchates, which makes them "exempt" jurisdictions, subject directly to Rome.

You can be certain that an attempt by Major-Archbishop Husar and the UGCC Synod to erect an Archepiscopal Exarchate for the express purpose of serving the faithful of the Russian GCC sui iuris would be frowned upon, to say the least, by Cardinal Daoud and his dicastery. The Congregation may be accepting of (or just choose to ignore) a bit of mix and match at parish levels (St. Andrew's Russian in El Segundo being under the omophor of the Melkite Eparch of Newton, though technically subject to the Latin Archbishop of LA; the same situation between the Russians and Melkites in Australia, except that I think it involves a couple of Russian parishes there; and the Ruthenians establishing OL of Wisdom within their Eparchy for Italo-Grieco-Albanians in LV), but when it gets to erection of jurisdictions and appointment of hierarchs, I doubt the boys are going to sit quietly by, particularly when it involves the playground shared with the ROC/MP.

Remember, when Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky, of blessed memory, appointed Blessed Leonid as Exarch of the Russian Church, he was acting under extraordinary authority granted him by Rome. That his successor might invoke that authority historically is not likely a scenario which Rome would countenance.

Many years,

Neil, who would happily see it done either by Major-Archbishop Husar, in commemoration of the appointment of Blessed Leonid as first Exarch by Metropolitan Andrey, or by Patriarch Gregory III, in commemoration of the incardination of Father Nicholas Tolstoy, of blessed memory, into the Church of Antioch, but knows that neither would fly.

And to what Neil has said I would only add that Metropolitan Andrey of blessed memory had to defend his actions erecting the Russian Greek Catholic Exarchate to the RC hierarchy and his own clergy for years after performing the act. Both Pius XI and Pius XII did recognize the exarchate, but not without the occasional internal protest.

Blessed Andrey wisely laid the ground work by having Exarch Leonid ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Mikhail Mirov, the Bulgarian exarch at that time residing in Constantinople, and not directly by the Metropolitan of L'viv, which would have caused consternation with not only the RCs but with some of his own latinized hierarchy.

In the spirit of Vatican II, and Orientale Lumen, it is certainly within the rights of the Russian Greek Catholic Church to demand what has historically been granted it by Rome, i.e. restoration of the Exarchate.

I personally think we should return to examining the historical situation of Fr. Nicholas Tolstoy in working under the patriarchal omphorion of the Melkites. There are already two parishes (Melbourne, Aus. and St. Andrew's in the US) working closely with the Melkites, who ordained their priests. The Romanians have also assisted in the US.

After some retrospect, given the ecumenical complications with L'viv and the establishment of the UGCC Patriarchate, that the Russian Catholic Church should pursue another means of canonical establishment other than simply aggregating with the UGCC.

Diak,

My theory on that is that either a Melkite hierarch was the sole Byzantine bishop in Rome at the time Father Nicholas made his profession of faith there or that Rome used the "logic" that, since the Melkites were the only patriarchal Byzantines, it made sense to incardinate him to that "Rite". Alternatively, someone (maybe you?) once suggested that we won him over with our cuisine and liquer

The situation at St. Andrew's is a bit unique in that Father Alexis was a parishoner of St. Andrew's when he was accepted to our seminary. I don't recollect that the original intent was to ordain him other than for our own Eparchy. I think the idea of ordaining him to the service of the Russians may have been formulated subsequently (wish I had thought to ask him at the enthronement). He is certainly fully integrated into our Eparchy, being one of our Protopresbyters. Of course, he and the temple also serve St. Paul's Melkite Mission and I don't doubt that the dual identity was the principal precipitating factor in the agreement between Cardinal Mahoney and Bishop John to place it under Newton's omophor.

We have had additional ties. As Steve/Three Cents mentioned, Archbishop Joseph, of blessed memory, took an episcopal interest in the now-suppressed Our Lady of Kazan Russian chapel in South Boston (an interest that was likely fostered by the friendship between our Cathedral Rector, Archimandrite Lucien Malouf, and Mitred Archpriest John Mowatt, both of blessed memory, as well as by the close bonds that Cardinal Cushing, also of blessed memory, had to both communities). Archbishop Joseph conferred the office of Archimandrite of the Melkite Church on Father Mowatt and his Funeral Liturgy was served at our Cathedral. Some of our clergy, most notably Father Romanos Russo, have also been actively involved with St. Michael's in the past.

As to Australia, I'm not certain how we came to be involved there although, from what I've read, the climate between the Latin hierarchs Down Under and the Eastern Churches has not always been all that it could be.

We would, of course, have the same problems as the UGCC in appointing an Exarch to the existing vacant jurisdiction or erecting another, as it's just a bit outside of our historical patriarchal terrtories. Yet, there was a Polish-born Melkite priest, Father Yan Leon Franckewicz, memory eternal, killed in Yartsevo in Krasoyarsk, Siberia, about 3 years ago- how he came to be there, I haven't a clue.

Is there an advantage to us over the UGCC? Maybe. Maybe we have enough history with Rome as rabble-rousers to get away with it (we did get our hand slapped though, a couple years back, for unilaterally erecting a jurisdiction for Western Europe and had to fold that tent).

Many years,

Neil

I had received notice recently from Russia of the appointment as a sort of "acting Exarch" of Fr Golovanov. I was under the impression that the brother of Metropolitan Andrew was the second Exarch and one other after that. It seems that Fr Golovanov is reportd to have seen in an old copy of the Annuario while visisting Rome that Bishop Andrew Katkov was listed as having been Exarch. I knew he was the Ordaining Prelate for the rite based in Rome. What then was Archbishop Alexander's position?

The Russian Centre in Australia (the only one in the country)is under the Latin Archbishop of Melbourne totally. The one priest (Fr Lawrence Cross) ordained by the Melkites is listed under their Eparchy in the list of clergy and diocese of Australia. The priest in question regards himself as Russian Catholic but as I say is listed as Melchite. The other 2 priests are the Priest in charge Archimandrite George Branch (Brianchaninov) MIC and a Franciscan Fr Christopher Gardener OFM who serves there occasionally. Curently the centre is at a cross road as to it's future.

Pavel,

You are correct. Father Alexander Zerchaninov, of blessed memory, was first named by Rome as Adminstrator of the Mission to the Russian Byzantines. Blessed Leonid was the first Exarch and was succeeded by Blessed Kliment, brother of Metropolitan Andrey. I am unaware that there was any successor named after Blessed Kliment's repose in 1951. You may be thinking of Father Serge Soloviev, of blessed memory, who was Vice Exarch under Blessed Leonid, of Father Victor Novikov, of blessed memory, whom I have seen identified as Exarch of Siberia, or of Archbishop Bartholomew Remov, also of blessed mmeory, who was Apostolic Administrator of Moscow prior to his death in 1935.

Bishop Alexander, of blessed memory, was episcopus ordinans from 1936 until 1958, when he was succeeded by Bishop Andrew, of blessed memory, who reposed in 1996.

Many years,

Neil

I hope the monks at Grottaferrata have repaired Bishop Alexander's tomb in their tiny cemetary. It was in a sorry state when I was last there in 1990. I would not put money on it but I am feel from memory he is styled as Archbishop on the side of the tomb.

Pavel,

You're correct. My error. He was originally ordained Bishop in 1936 and named to the Titular See of Pionoa; in 1947, he was elevated to the Titular Archepiscopate of Parium.

Many years,

Neil

I've never understood the MP's vehement objections to the Ukranian Catholic Patriarchate - until the reference to the "UGCC Patriarch" as "the Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus" struck it home with a jackhammer!

Friends, is it really suprising that Moscow objects vehemently? It lays claim to the Kyivan Patriarchate, and indeed bases its whole historico-national concept upon this fact. It's deeply intwined with Russian nationalism which Moscow claims for itself.

Now, the MP has a challenger. This is made worse by the challenger's location, the fact that the Church is a "real" eparchy it believes is its own but which was stolen by the "Filioquist-Crusading-Papal Monarchists", and the general poor state and devolution of the Russian Empire which many blame on the West (the late Gen. Lebed described -but AFAIK didn't share- this mentality "Who is responsible for the sad state of Russia today? China? No. The Muslim world? No. Who is to blame then? The only answer can be- the West.").

Yes, the mentality's silly - Moscow should focus on the fact that there are more churchgoing Russian Protestants than Russian Orthodox- but nevertheless it's real. Rome wants good, smooth and nonpolemical relations with Moscow, and the slightest complaint is definitely heard the Vatican.

Such is the world we live it. I wish there was some way to go about this without angering Moscow/Muscovite nationalism and starting a wave of Muscovite anti-Catholicism.

Marc

(who nevertheless fully supports Patriarch Lubomyr and the Russian Catholic Exarchate)