www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Proposal for Move Towards Byzantine Catholic Unity in North America

Good points Athanasius. No, your brilliance is shining here. And there certainly is precident. There are jurisdictions under the Patriarch of Constantinople that use Greek, Ukrainian, Slavonic, Spanish and even Estonian.

The answer is not a micro-church sui iuris, that only leads to other problems. Why stop with a metropolitan church sui iuris? Perhaps we should form sui juris churches in individual cities? Then we can really pare down the vocation pool. It's already down to three or four guys left in the Pittsburgh seminary already. I know there are many reasons for this, but I firmly believe one significant reason is there is no longer a larger base sui iuris to draw vocations from and no remaining married clergy.

You've hit the nail on the head, Athanasius. Unification under a Kyivan patriarchate makes a lot of sense ecclesiologically. There are already UGCC parishes using English, Ukrainian, Slavonic, Portuguese, French, German, Croatian and Spanish. Historically there have been parishes with Russian liturgical usage, Kyivan, Carpatho-Ruthenian and even Old Believer liturgical usage all under the omophorion of the UGCC in the time of Metropolitan Sheptysky.

More integrated ecclesial unity could work with mutual charity and humility.

I met a family recently who identitified themselves as Rusyn and kept Rusyn traditions at home. They belonged to a UGCC parish in Canada and were absolutely satisfied. It was an all-English parish, their kids were involved, the parish used some prostopinje chant mixed with Galician chant, they felt at home and were happy.

Divisions get us nowhere exept making us more divided and provincial. We were united at one time under Bishop Ortynsky. The political and nationalistic viscitudes which precipitated the split after Kyr Soter's death are largely forgotten. We could be united again.

I wouldn't call those conditions in 1907-16 "unity". In that short period of time, over half the Lemko immigrants became Russian Orthodox precisely because of Bishop Ortynsky and the "American Circle" of Ukrainian priests, and the Subcarpathian Rusyn "church congress" in Johnstown in 1910 proposed two avenues of recourse: (1) demand a bishop "of our own blood"; or (2) schism.

Under a Ukrainian flag and tryzub, of course. And don't pretend you don't know that the Ukrainians would not have "unity" any other way.

Greetings,

<<<Only the Ruthenian Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh is an ecclesia sui juris; all the other Eastern Catholic jurisdictions in the US are under the omophorion of some other sui juris Church outside the United States.>>>

I am not so sure on the accuracy of the statement. The Romanian Catholic Eparchy in the in US is not under any church, but under the Roman Pontiff. There is no relationship with the church in Romania.

Peter

I think that i spite of being separated from their Church in Romania, they still commemorate Metropolitan Lucian in their prayers, as well as in Quebec.

Shlomo Br. Peter,
You stated: Actually the situation is a not that clear cut. All Eastern Catholic Bishops outside of their "homelands" for now are part of the Patriarchate of the West (through the Congregation for Eastern Catholic Church, or as some us radical Eastern call it the Colonial Office), but they are also members of their respective home Church's Holy Synod. So the process is this mess of having a Synod give three names to the Vatican, the Congregation vets them, and then the Pope appoints them.

Hopefully, this situation will not last much longer. The above is one of the issues that the Eastern Patriarchs brought to the Pope to discuss. Vatican II for us is like getting a new high tech car, we are still trying to get the bugs out and make sure the wheels are balanced for a smooth ride.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Yuhannon,

I am not convinced of your statement that all the bishops outside of their homeland are part of the synod in the home land. I know that is not the case here in the US with the Romanian Eparchy. We have no affiliation, if you will, with the motherland. The church in Romania is the church in Romania, and the church in the US is the church in the US. I am not sure about Canada, I know that the missions there fall under the local Laitn Bishop.

Peter

Br. Peter,

Yuhannon is correct. Eparchies outside the traditional territory of the patriarchate/major archeparchy remain part of the Synod while simultaneously being under the supervision of Rome. You are also correct. The Romanian Eparchy of Canton has no official relationship with the Romanian Metropolia just as the Eparchy of Mukachevo has no official relationship with the Pittsburgh Metropolia because metropolitan churches do not have a Synod but a Council of Hierarchs, a real difference. If you look at the CCEO, patriarchal/major archeparchial churches have a true degree of autonomy. Metropolitan/eparchial churches function almost exactly like their Latin counterparts in realtion to Rome. This is one of the biggets problems with the CCEO and needs correction.

In Christ,
Lance

Dear Lemko,

It is, of course, true that Ukrainians are very nationalistic. And so are you, as you should be.

But unity with a Kyivan Primate is something quite different.

Patriarch Josef was committed to his Ukrainian people.

And, at the same time, he was father to more than just Ukrainians, to more than just Greek Catholics.

Historically, Kyiv had many different cultural groups under its omophorion. St Paissy Velichkovsky counted ten cultural/national groups among his followers and especially loved the Roumanian language and culture.

Ukrainians can be a bit much at times - I know I am.

But I'm not 100% Ukrainian (don't tell Diak and the others!).

And I find the Kyivan tradition and the UGCC, at least the parishes I know, to be open to other cultural identities within a welcoming omophorion.

But I'll understand if you don't agree with me!

By the way, the trident is not specifically a "Ukrainian" symbol, but was taken from the Byzantine Empire, the symbol of Poseidon, as you know, which was used by many ship-faring peoples.

The figure of "Britannia" (which is a form of "Athena") bears the trident. We had it in our Toronto coat of arms and the flag of Newfoundland bears a trident, as does that of Barbados.

The blue and yellow flag are simply the colours of Imperial Byzantium, blue for royalty, yellow for the gold crown.

Ukrainians liked to wear blue and yellow colours in their clothing and other expressions of their material culture.

This is why the Mongols called Ukrainians the "blue and yellows" or "Khakhols" - an offensive term the Russians took from them to call Ukrainians by. "Khakh" is Mongolian for "blue" and "Ulo" stands for "yellow."

The worse thing you need, should you come into union with a Kyivan Patriarchate, is a lot of Lemkos who are Ukrainian nationalists trying to upset you!

P.S. Do the Lemkos have their own flag and symbol? Where could I buy these?

Alex

I think it's sad to see that the Eastern Catholic Churches do not seem to have a true autonomy as churches, they can't have jurisdiction over their faithful outside their patriarchal terrirories, the can't beatify their own martyrs..

how can Rome expect the Orthodox Churches to be in full communion, under this circusntances?

Will this change someday?

It's curious that the Moscow Patriarchate is always criticized because of its "jurisdictionalism", but what about Rome?

Alex, I guess it would be one of these, depending on whom you ask:
[Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image]
[Linked Image]

For this Lemko, the last one serves quite nicely, thank you.

Dear Lemko,

Thank you, Big Guy!

Alex

Though the fact is often forgotten, the Roman Pontiff is himself the head of a sui juris Church, the Church of Rome. You are under his omophor as head of that particular Church and as Patriarch of the West.

Bad, bad Remie! One should only look at what Rome says, not at what Rome does.

Dear Remie (and Stuart if you are feeling up to it . . .)

When in the history of the Eastern Catholic Churches in union with Rome did any one of them ever beatify or glorify one of their own saints by themselves?

I'm not interested in the argument that this is what a Particular Church does - I agree in advance.

But when has this ever happened - how about just one case in point.

And how could this situation be changed?

Alex

Shlomo Lance,
Thank you for the correction. I have a question for the board. Does anyone have the English translation of the proposed changes to the Eastern Code that the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs came up with? From what I understand they cut down the number of appeals that could be made to Rome (yeah )

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon