www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West greek catholic church in belarus

Rome is doing the right thing. By respecting the jurisdiction of other Patriarchs and showing respect to them, the Pope is actually bringing the East and teh West closer.

How would Rome be disrespecting Moscow by re-establishing the Greek Catholic Exarchates and appointing bishops in Russia or Belarus? It is no more than Moscow and Constantinople have done in Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, etc. It is hypocritical of Rome to establish Latin Provinces in both countries then claim ecumenical sensitivity as a reason for not re-erecting Greek Catholic Exarchates.

No, but on the other hand even the poorest old Baba in rural Belarus has as much right to be a Catholic as the Pope has. How can anyone decide who stays and who goes so arbitrarily? It's criminal.

I think it unseemly to just cut them (and the Russians) off like that, and I always have. Sure, excommunicate unrepentent sinners and the like, but don't abandon the flock!

Now, if the decision has been made to commend the faithful to the care of Orthodox bishops, they need to come right out and say so! That would speak volumes, better than just letting them hang out to dry like that.

If the idea is to just maintain the community 'under the radar' so to say, at subsistence level, then just return the church to the care of the church in Ukraine, I am sure they will do right by them, or at least better than the current arrangement. After all, aren't most of the Greek Catholics in Poland in the Ukrainian church? What makes Belarus so different? Breaking up the Kyivan church into modern national bodies is not best for them right now. Poland, Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania should all be considered the homeland of one GCC, so that the synod can properly establish dioceses and care for Greek Catholics without neglect, interference or obstruction from Rome. (BTW, it's about time for that name change.)

I realize that the government of Belarus will still be a serious complicating factor because of it's lack of approval, but if the local Greek Catholics were connected with a church based in Kyiv it may fare better than being connected with a church based in Rome.

Michael

THE Kyivan Church?

You do know that most Ukrainians are fully Orthodox right? The GCC's place is in L'viv and Belostok, not Kyiv and Minsk.

I wish people would stop calling the Catholic Church - Kyivan. It's about as Kyivan as I am Japanese.

You are aware of the fact that Kyiv signed the treaty uniting itself to Moscow so as not to be Latinised by Poland right?

Uprising after uprising, during the Polska Shlyahta Ukrainians payed with their blood to keep the country Orthodox.


Hardly the actions of a nation that wished to become Catholic.

We don't have a Canonical Kyivan Patriarchate at this time, but God willing we soon will.

Turning the faithful over to Orthodox Bishops?

I LOVE THAT IDEA!

No one took into consideration that Belarus is ran very much like the former Soviet Union. They still have the KGB, it is a closed country with a dictator and so on. They had their doorbell rang in 1990, but they never answered the door if you get my drift (they knew CCCP/USSR collapsed but chose to keep it going in their country). Perhaps, just perhaps these facts may indeed be a major reason.

How do we know that some exarchs aren't episcopos in pectore, or is that not a possibility?

I noticed on the site of St. Michael's it says the following:


http://stmichaelruscath.org/library/russicum.php

Is this related?

Alex,

I think you can look at things in two ways (as a Roman catholic). One view, and one gaining prevalence is the one you address; yes, ROme views the Orthodox churches as having valid orders, sacraments, so the Roman church is not depriving them of spiritual goods if they transfer jurisdictions;

problem is that the other way of looking at it, which is the Eastern Catholics way, is that they have valid theological or other reasons for wanting to testify their alleigance to the ROman Pontiff, often when it would be significantly easier for them not to so; Ukrainian Catholics in Communist Russia for example.

We should not disregard the desires of these people whose presence and theologiucal position demands that we minister to them.

Edit: It is also worth noting that the Orthodox do not consider themselves as forming anything like as close to ROme as the vice versa. In their eyes we (mostly) do not have valid sacraments or clergy, instances of economia not withstanding.

Ned

Ned my friend,
Those statements are broad generalisations. No offence, but back up what you say with sources please. No malice or anger in my post, just saying it's a bit of a huge generalisation.

I think the position of the Catholic church in relation to orthodox clergy and sacraments is well established; the guidelines for receieving sacraments when no Catholic Priest is available as encapsulated in and the instructions for receiving communion in the front of all of my Roman missals for example (NCCB 1996 "guidelines for redception of communion" for an example). Members of orthodox and some other churches are free to recieve Catholic sacraments in our canon law, and I have witnessed them do so on a number of occasions, because, (from the catechism of the catholic church) "this comunion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that woudl permit the common celebration of the holy eucharist". LIkewise, in our canon law, if I was in Russia for instance where no Catholic Pastor was available, I would be permitted to recieve Communion or other sacrament from an Orthodox priest. I refer particularly to eucharist and holy orders as these sacraments are dependent on priesthood for their celebration, whilst baptism in particualar is not neccesarily and widely recognised, not touching on Holy Orders.

Not being Orthodox I don't have written sources at hand to document my views expressed; I take your point , though, no offence intended, I will evaluate my personal experiences with orthodox clergy expressing quoted views on these matters further.I could have used less strong language to make the main point of the edit, which is that Orthodox are less likely to admit Catholics to communion say which may indicate that they feel less close to union.

Ned

Actually I recalled something on paper in the dim depths of last night...not to do with Catholic v Orthodox, but different orthodox jursidictions not recognizing each other's sacraments..this article is from a secular perspective, but it rests on the idea of apostolic succession and the validity of holy orders, or at least that's how the greek preists explained it to me..I draw your attention to the top of page 11 of the PDF.

http://www.agc.org.au/web_images/Cahill%20paper.pdf

Anyway, as I said, even so I will be careful how I make such general statments in future; I recognise attitudes vary between circumstances and jurisdictions.

Ned

Alex, I'd be there!

"You do know that most Ukrainians are fully Orthodox right? The GCC's place is in L'viv and Belostok, not Kyiv and Minsk.

I wish people would stop calling the Catholic Church - Kyivan. It's about as Kyivan as I am Japanese."

It seems history clearly documents that the Metropolitan of Kyiv entered into communion with Rome through the Union of Brest. Therefore any and all of his successors do have a historical claim to call themselves as such.

The movement of Patriarch Lubomyr back to Kyiv has caused much more consternation in places outside of Kyiv than in it, and in spite of the suspicious arson of the chapel it has been quite peaceful there according to Kyr Bohdan.

The "GCC's place" is anywhere the Gospel should be proclaimed. That also goes for the Orthodox. May we all consider that more rather than earthly geographic boundaries.

Sorry Father Deacon, but by pointing out the fact that the movement of "Patriarch" Lubomyr to Kyiv makes the Catholic Church in some way Kyivan is also an "earthly geographical" argument.

Also the treaty of Brest can hardly be used as an argument, because of oposition from most of Ukrainian Christians and the Corruption of the nobility and clergy who were involved in it. Estates and titles in Ploland, money and prestige turned out to be more important to some than proclaiming the True Faith.

What the move of the "Patriarch" creates is more of a Schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Church in the Ukraine and brings East/West relations to a real boil, thus serving as a direct obstacle to "proclaiming the Gospel".

As for the successor of the first Metropolitan who entered into communion with Rome. He ceased to be Orthodox the moment the ink toched the paper, thus he stopped Himself being of the Kyivan Church.

The Kyivan Church that spread the Gospel all throughout the East, the Kyivan Church that brought Pravoslavie to Russians, the Kyivan Church that valiantly defended the lands from the Tatars and the Latinisers. The Kyivan Church that was supressed by the Communists and even by MP to some degree.

I pray...I believe.... I KNOW that we shall have a Canonical Kyivan Patriarchate sooner than many may think.

"Sorry Father Deacon, but by pointing out the fact that the movement of "Patriarch" Lubomyr to Kyiv makes the Catholic Church in some way Kyivan is also an "earthly geographical" argument."

Borislav, while it may not be a happy memory the historical reality is that the majority of the hierarchy of the Kyivan Church opted for union with Rome through the Union of Brest. The legitimately and synodally elected Metropolitan of Kyiv at that time opted for union. He did not abdicate his see or title.

Moving to your historical see should be the right of any bishop, Orthodox or Catholic. I would certainly grant the same to any Orthodox bishop who wishes to return to his historical see.

It seems perhaps the "boil" occurs outside of Kyiv, as relations between the UGCC and the UOC-KP and UAOC are generally quite good. The boil seems to originate in Moscow, which is certainly much more geographically removed from Kyiv than the three hierarchies I have mentioned. As I recall, the UOC-MP still has yet to be granted autocephaly, while certainly Kyiv is an ancestral spiritual home of the MP.

My point about "earthly geographical", if one was to read the post, is connected to our obligation to evangelize, which I have as a Greek Catholic and which Orthodox have as well. Orthodox hierarchies have been established in such places as South America and Western Europe. You don't me or many other Catholics speaking of these direct incursions into traditionally Latin territories as an "obstacle" or "real boil" nor do we fear any aspect of those who wish to evangelize through a church of Apostolic Succession.