www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Moscow Patriarchate says no way for UGC Patriarchate

Dear Steven,
Having Kyr Vsevolod as Metropolitan of South America would be FANTASTIC!!!.
Do dreams come true?
Lauro

Dear Qathuliqa Mor Ephrem,

You weren't sounding "harsh" - you just put your finger on the issues as they are - and that can be a shock for some of us!

(I nominate you for future married Catholicos of Kyiv, by the way . . .)

The difficulty here, as I see it, is to make sense of the Western notion of "doctrinal development."

Vatican I says this and that about the Pope and then Vatican II comes along and SEEMS to put something of a human face on Vatican I - perhaps I'm reading too much into the documents and perhaps I'm connecting Bl. Pope John XXIII's personal and charismatic style of governance to it all.

My "jumpiness" on this issue, as you well know, has to do with my time spent in the Patriarchal movement of the UGCC, the hopes dashed, the amazement at the Vatican's actions etc.

The journals and articles produced by the truly committed people in that movement often involved a consideration of and reflection on papal doctrine and papal government.

And some of the articles wanted to clearly say something radical, but then, owing to fears of upsetting people, ended up saying really nothing.

For example, one article quoted at length statements from St Robert Cardinal Bellarmine on when we should oppose the Church - when he wants to destroy the Church etc. And what did that have to do with Pope Paul VI?

That struggle resulted, I think, in a better appreciation among Ukie Catholics of the lines drawn between our loyalty to the Pope as Holy Father and Teacher of faith and morals, and our relationship to the Vatican that is, yes, backed up by papal power.

The question was constantly raised then, as now, if Rome doesn't approve of a Patriarchate for the UGCC, are we being disobedient? Or how about bordering on schism?

That scared some of our people - for others, usually in Basilian parishes , it wasn't an issue at all.

The "enlightened element" among us began to think that even if the RCC hasn't defined what constitutes Particularity and Particular exercise of rights and authority in the Eastern Catholic Churches, that doesn't preclude us from acting as such on our own for the greater good of our Church and people.

With that new consciousness came a revitalized sense of Eastern Christian identity among us that was grounded in the liturgy even moreso than in church politics. For many of us, Eastern Christian identity was linked to our own sense of "selfhood" as Ukrainian Catholics. And that selfhood could only be truly preserved and encouraged within the Particular form of government of a Patriarchate.

If much smaller Eastern Churches didn't have a Patriarchate, perhaps we wouldn't be making such a big deal over it! But the Apostolic Legend of St Andrew at Kyiv, usurped by Moscow to establish its own Patriarchate, was too compelling for us not to go after it - as our Orthodox brothers and sisters have as well.

Disunity is a curse of the Ukrainian people (I'm speaking to you, Amadao, as well!).

We're like the Scots in that regard - "Scottia or Scythia" what's the real difference?

We are divided into a number of Churches, including the "canonical" Orthodox Church, that are each headed by a Patriarch, recognized or not.

But this struggle based on various views of who we are goes back to the 12th century and the struggle between the hierarchs St Nikita of Novhorod and St. Clement Smolyatych (I don't know who canonized the latter, but he's always portrayed with a halo). They fought over the issue of dependence on Constantinople vs. Kyivan Church autocephaly.

It's nothing knew to us, in other words.

And yet, the "divisiveness" of church life in Ukraine has nothing to do with doctrine per se, but with canonical administration and how it should look like.

The UGCC is moving toward achieving its vision of "Orthodoxy in communion with Rome" Vatican I notwithstanding.

Rome already admits that doctrine is always in a process of development. Well, our own affirmation of Particularity within our church's life may very well help that process along, for the good of the entire movement for the reunification of the Churches.

In any event, it is too late for Rome to do anything about it.

The fact that the Vatican is even looking at the Patriarchate issue with respect to our Church is not because it is finally being generous - it knows we are not the same Ukrainian Catholics today that we were thirty years ago.

We're as mad as hell, and we're not going to take it any longer.

Alex

Dear Alex:

Thanks for remembering me in your enlightening discourse with Mor Ephrem.

I noticed, though, that your conception of "our Church" in this thread is somehow delimited by your experiences in the patriarchal movement which, I do understand, has become very "personal" and has cut deep into the Ukrainian consciousness.

To me, "our Church" has taken an all-inclusive meaning that to talk of independence, autocephaly, and anything suggesting "isolation" has become increasingly foreign.

I know, our ideas are diametrically opposed for the moment.

But I strongly support the erection of a Patriarchal Church for the Ukranians. However, communion with Rome should be maintained until such a time when a more "beneficial" arrangement with "the other" is cemented.

AmdG

Mor Ephrem wrote:
But my copy of the Vatican II documents has Vatican II call itself the "Second Vatican Ecumenical Council", if I am not mistaken.

The term "ecumenical" simply means general and can be applied differently to different councils. The us of the term for the Vatican I and II councils does not automatically raise them to the same status as the Seven Ecumenical Councils. There is no official proclamation in the Church that the later 14 councils are equal in rank as the Seven Councils.

Mor Ephrem wrote:
My studying of the issue has led me to conclude otherwise. There is support for Petrine primacy, but not for infallibility and jurisdiction as currently defined; at least I have never read anything convincing me of the truth of the Roman Catholic position.

I respect that you come to a different conclusion. While I consider some of the Western arguments to be over presumptuous even the evidence of Rome stepping in unasked to resolve disputes without condemnation from the entire rest of the Church is enough for me to see the jurisdictional primacy. Even if one only considers the Scriptural evidence at the Council of Jerusalem it was Peter's voice that settled the matter (even though James was the host bishop chairing the council). There he acted not as the Bishop of Jerusalem (which he no longer was) but as the first among equals (and not just in an honorary sense). At one level Peter's confession applies to each of us and at another level it applies to each bishop. Yet historically the East has always ascribed more to the primacy of Peter then one of simply honor. While each bishop certainly inherits from Peter this inheritance cannot be an individualistic one but must exist within the sacramental community of the entire Church. The authority of Peter exists wherever the true faith is kept yet it cannot exist apart from communion with immediate Successor of Peter.

This, of course, is not to say that I agree with the current model of authority in the Latin Church in which the pope functions not only as first authority but often as the only authority (at times effectively reducing his fellow bishops in the Latin Church to mere assistant bishops).

Mor Ephrem wrote in a different post:
Eastern Catholic canons, as referred to by Orthoman once upon a time, always seem to reserve all of the rights of the Roman Pontiff "over" the other Churches, even if he doesn't necessarily choose to exercise them all the time. Can anyone point to anything that assures this kind of privilege to other Patriarchs?

I would need to check the reference but I think it was the Patriarch of Alexandria who declared at a very early date that he had full and immediate jurisdiction throughout his patriarchate. No patriarch has claimed this over the entire Church since even those who believe that the primacy of Peter was only honorary would never have attempted to claim more authority than Peter.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, I support the creation of a Patriarch of Ukraine. There is ample precedent for such a move. It would be tough to claim that he had any jurisdiction outside of Ukraine but this is a whole different issue. Husar should go on record as stating that when full communion is restored the Ukrainian Catholic Patriarch of Kiev would resign in favor of either an Orthodox counterpart or a new patriarch.

[QUOTE] The "enlightened element" among us began to think that even if the RCC hasn't defined what constitutes Particularity and Particular exercise of rights and authority in the Eastern Catholic Churches, that doesent preclude us from acting as such on our own for the greater good of our Church.
Phil this is what I meant to say . [QUOTE]

The Pontiff does hold primacy in the Eastern Catholic Churches. A Patriarch has the highest ecceliastical dignity after the Pope and has "jurisdiction" over a particular territory.

Phil, I am sorry to come off as combative, but you made some very Orthodox Roman Catholic Statements. You brought my Unitae out .

Steven

The term "ecumenical" simply means general and can be applied differently to different councils.

Perhaps, but it seems that the use of "ecumenical" itself has been restricted to only a few councils in the history of the Church (however many you number), even though there were plenty of general councils all around. Maybe that's just the way I see it, and my view is faulty. But it seems to me that there is something special about the word "ecumenical" that would require that word to be used rather than "general" when speaking of this or that council compared to another.

The us of the term for the Vatican I and II councils does not automatically raise them to the same status as the Seven Ecumenical Councils. There is no official proclamation in the Church that the later 14 councils are equal in rank as the Seven Councils.

What seven councils? I only know of Three. :p

While I consider some of the Western arguments to be over presumptuous even the evidence of Rome stepping in unasked to resolve disputes without condemnation from the entire rest of the Church is enough for me to see the jurisdictional primacy.

What are some of these instances, and the circumstances surrounding them?

Even if one only considers the Scriptural evidence at the Council of Jerusalem it was Peter's voice that settled the matter (even though James was the host bishop chairing the council).

I don't buy it. The Latins at another forum tried to convince me of this one, but I don't think the Scriptures themselves record things this way. It is true that Saint Peter speaks in favour of the position espoused by Saint Paul, that the Gentile Christians shouldn't have to submit to the Mosaic Law. It is true that "the whole assembly fell silent" after Saint Peter's remarks, but that doesn't necessarily imply the type of "Rome has spoken, the case is closed" idea the Latins I've talked to say it does. For if we read further, it is James, the Bishop of Jerusalem (as you rightly note) who not only "chairs" the meeting, but issues the definitive judgment in the matter, and not Saint Peter. For we read:

Saint James acknowledges the words of Saint Peter, and proclaims their truth in light of Scripture. He, then, gives the judgement to which the Church agrees. Saint Peter's witness is important, no doubt, but I think it is a stretch to say that he settled the matter when the words of Saint James seem even more authoritative than the words of Saint Peter.

There are other passages in the book of the Acts wherein is described how Saint Peter is sent by the Church to address this or that problem in some place. Why does Saint Peter need to be sent anywhere by the Church? He could simply inform the rest that he is going, he can invite others along (I think Saint John also accompanied him in at least one instance), but why does he need to be sent by the Church? The Scriptural witness, at best, seems more cloudy than Roman Catholics like to admit.

Yet historically the East has always ascribed more to the primacy of Peter then one of simply honor.

Granted. I recognise this.

While each bishop certainly inherits from Peter this inheritance cannot be an individualistic one but must exist within the sacramental community of the entire Church.

True, which is why papal infallibility as defined at Vatican I looks so strange to me. Even if you say that papal infallibility has never been invoked without consultation from other bishops, even if you say that much of what is stipulated in the dogmatic definition either hasn't or probably will not be done, the very fact that the power of the Pope to do these things on his own is there and affirmed is something to wonder about.

The authority of Peter exists wherever the true faith is kept yet it cannot exist apart from communion with immediate Successor of Peter.

But if the Successor of Peter does not keep the true faith?

I would need to check the reference but I think it was the Patriarch of Alexandria who declared at a very early date that he had full and immediate jurisdiction throughout his patriarchate.

I've heard this before too, and do not dispute it, as I do not also dispute the things DJS (if I'm not mistaken) mentioned with regard to the EP.

No patriarch has claimed this over the entire Church since even those who believe that the primacy of Peter was only honorary would never have attempted to claim more authority than Peter.

What I do question is whether or not the Patriarch of Rome had/should have this authority over "the entire Church".

It would be tough to claim that he had any jurisdiction outside of Ukraine but this is a whole different issue.

One that is resolved easily. Don't make him a Patriarch. Make him "Catholicos of all Ukrainians". You think Moscow's having a cow now?

The Pontiff does hold primacy in the Eastern Catholic Churches. A Patriarch has the highest ecceliastical dignity after the Pope and has "jurisdiction" over a particular territory.

Dear Steven,

This was all I was trying to get at when I found myself agreeing with Amado's view of things. If the Pontiff has primacy in your Churches, and only after him do your Patriarchs come, it should be sufficiently clear to anyone that there is indeed a higher office to be aspired to (if any bishop dare aspire to higher office in his pride).

Phil, I am sorry to come off as combative, but you made some very Orthodox Roman Catholic Statements. You brought my Unitae out .

I don't think you're coming off as combative, but I must say I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. Do you mean to say "orthodox Roman Catholic statements"? If this is so, then I'm sorry, but I must make such "orthodox Roman Catholic statements" because, at least to some degree, they reflect the current status quo with regard to all the Catholic Churches which accept the Pope as the head of the Church.

Dear Amado,

Well, you raise an interesting point.

I don't know if we really disagree or hold diametrically opposed views

By "our Church" I mean the Particular Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, Patriarchal et alia.

If that sounds parochial, that's just the way it is .

For me, there are two aspects of Christian Church membership, one that is Particular and one that isn't so particular

My membership in the "Universal Church of Christ" is when I am a communicant in my Particular UGCC -the whole in the part.

I don't belong to two Churches and my Particular Church with its specific ecclesial, spiritual culture is what informs my identity and my life as a member of the Body of Christ.

I look at the "universe" through the prism of that perspective.

The idea, which is Western to be sure, that the West is somehow more "universal" because it isn't as limited by local spiritual cultural identities and contexts as "us Easterners" is simply an illusion at worst, and naivete at best.

The Roman Church is truly rooted - and limited - by its Western cultural a prioris that prevent it from being "universal."

Its Western cultural prism is what prevented the Church to grow in China, for example. It is what has always prevented a real rapprochement with the Eastern Churches.

The domination of Latin ecclesial and spiritual culture in the Roman Church is what ultimately led to the Protestant Reformation - essentially, some would argue, a cultural phenomenon when the Roman-Latin religious experience was rejected by the northern European Churches as that experience was not their cultural Christian self-expression.

This is why your discussion about the "universal" stuff just rings hollow with me, Big Guy.

We of the East have heard that from Rome many times before - and we still haven't come around to that Latin church ideology.

The Pope is the universal First among Equals etc. to be sure.

But that simply means, for us, that the churches throughout the world can look to him as a symbol of unity and guidance when they require it - as opposd to a symbol of domination.

That doesn't make the Pope "jack of all trades, man of all cultures."

He has an obligation to be as open as possible to all cultures and church traditions, to be sure.

But the Pope is, first and foremost, a son of the Polish Church - of which he and all of us are proud.

His Latin Church mentality, which is natural as he is of the Latin Church, is something that is also reflected in all he does and says, including when he looks Eastward.

No one expects him to be what he isn't.

So lets forget about this "universal" thing, O.K.?

It doesn't exist, except through the prism of one's own local cultural/church tradition.

Alex

James begins his speech with a specific reference Peter and Peter's judgement and declaration on the matter. "After much debate" Peter gave his decision, implying that there was not debate after the decision had been given. The fact that the assembly "feel silent" after Peter's words clearly shows the authority of his words.

Additionally, Peter "stood up" up to enforce his decision. In first century Judaism, standing up to speak implied definite authority and enforcement.

ChristTeen287

Dear Qathuliqa Mor Ephrem,

First of all, congratulations on completing two years since your first elevation to the Catholicosate of New Orleans and the entire South!

Ad Multos Annos! Mnohaya Lita! Many Years!

When Steven said you made Orthodox Roman Catholic statements, I think you are correct in interpreting what he meant . . .

And I think I'm finally, at long last, beginning to see what you mean - and I agree.

But you are speaking as an outsider - no offence -as someone who picks up the text of Vatican I, reads it and says to himself, "Oh dear!"

And I can understand why you would say that. In Orthodoxy, there has been much less, shall we say, "doctrinal development" outside of the seven ecumenical councils - with some local councils later on and Romanides says two others qualify as ecumenical councils in his books.

Orthodoxy has tended to remain conservative and unchanging throughout its history - which is a good thing, I'm not knocking it.

Rome and the West, not being under the Turks, for one thing, has had the opportunity and leisure to hold other great Councils and really develop theological perspectives, angels on pins and the like .

This is why you get, as I see it, such a differential in tone and teaching between Vatican I and Vatican II.

The Papacy itself had a different style under Pope Boniface VIII, who insisted on even beatifying all saints and going over the heads of the bishops, to someone like John XXIII and also J2P2.

The "service model" of the Petrine ministry is today contrasted to the authoritative, absolutist model presented by Vatican I.

In addition, and again I'm no theologian like you and Anastasios the Seminarian, my first inclination is to examine the historic, social context in which Vatican I was held.

And we know that it was a time when the Church was under attack by rationalist forces everywhere in Europe.

The Popes largely lost their estates under the new nationalist movements and became very reclusive and defensive about their prerogatives.

Vatican I was very much an expression of its times.

This also happened several times in the Byzantine East where even the liturgy took on a defensive, doctrinal tone following the doctrinal struggles that were eventually settled by the Councils (they needed more than three to get their act together ).

The important thing is that Vatican I is not the final word on the papacy and that it can be mollified, altered and transformed, as it is being done now - and as John Henry Cardinal Newman also argued in his writings to those who saw the papacy as an unchanging absolutist monolith.

Vatican I had no bearing, for instance, on what I saw happen with thousands of youth, including Hindu, Muslim and other youths, who came out to see J2P2 in Toronto in July.

When you pray with thousands from around the world for peace in our time with the Pope in attendance, who cares about Vatican I?

Alex

The presentation of dotrine almosr always molds itself to counter the problems of the times (basically, how the doctrine is presented/formulated), but its actual essense never changes.

ChristTeen287

Dear ChristTeen,

I can live with that!

Alex

First of all, congratulations on completing two years since your first elevation to the Catholicosate of New Orleans and the entire South!

Ad Multos Annos! Mnohaya Lita! Many Years!

Dear Alex,

I didn't know you were keeping tabs on my membership status.

But you are speaking as an outsider - no offence -as someone who picks up the text of Vatican I, reads it and says to himself, "Oh dear!"

I don't take offence in being an outsider in this discussion, as long as I can be in it.

And I can understand why you would say that. In Orthodoxy, there has been much less, shall we say, "doctrinal development" outside of the seven ecumenical councils - with some local councils later on and Romanides says two others qualify as ecumenical councils in his books.

Orthodoxy has tended to remain conservative and unchanging throughout its history - which is a good thing, I'm not knocking it.

Alex, you remind me of a meeting I had yesterday with one of my professors. He's a minister in the Reformed Church of America, but was raised Russian Orthodox! He says that he feels a particular "kinship" with other Orthodox, even though he isn't Orthodox now, because that was his upbringing. I kept thinking "Who are you trying to fool? You know you're one of us. Come back!"

Anyway, we were talking about "Tradition" and he made an interesting point. He said that "Tradition" was in some ways a more reliable form of knowledge than science, because science can and does change with new discoveries and what not (apparently, Planck's constant is not so constant anymore...he told me he read that somewhere), but "Tradition" is preserved by being handed down unchanged from one generation to the next.

Hence, said he, one could trust the Orthodox Church to speak authoritatively on Christianity and on the Bible because it is not subject to change; some may say that clinging to Tradition is a bad thing because it prevents further intellectual insight, but it is precisely because the Church clings to Tradition that it can be trusted: maybe you don't know much more than X or don't even want to go further than X, but you definitely know that X is true because it was part of the Tradition given to us from Christ and the Apostles. He said that the Protestant churches cannot say the same thing, and "to a certain extent", neither can the Roman Catholic Church.

Whether he is right or wrong on this last point (with regard to the RCC) is up for debate, a debate we here are taking up in one way or the other, but there is certainly much truth, in my opinion, with his analysis. Of course, I don't see him giving up the Reformed Church to join the True Church (he looked kinda uneasy when he thought I was going to write my next paper on the Eucharist) any time soon, but it was interesting to hear his thoughts.

The "service model" of the Petrine ministry is today contrasted to the authoritative, absolutist model presented by Vatican I.

Very true, but both models still stand, and that of Vatican I was raised to the level of dogma.

In addition, and again I'm no theologian like you and Anastasios the Seminarian, my first inclination is to examine the historic, social context in which Vatican I was held.

And we know that it was a time when the Church was under attack by rationalist forces everywhere in Europe.

The Popes largely lost their estates under the new nationalist movements and became very reclusive and defensive about their prerogatives.

Vatican I was very much an expression of its times.

Alex, I'm no theologian. I barely get the "one who prays" part right, let alone anything else.

I agree with you that we must look at Vatican I from a historical and social perspective, and in doing so, it is easy to see the historical forces that may have led to Vatican I's "infallible" declarations with regard to the papal office. The problem is that they are now dogma for Catholics, and I've never read anything -- from Rome or from the Eastern Catholic Churches -- denying that this is so for all involved. If it is an infallible dogma binding upon all Catholics (and my reading of the texts in question seems to imply just that), then what? You have to believe it, or you are not Catholic in the strictest sense (so it seems to me).

Someone said earlier that "to be Catholic you do not need unity of belief". No offence to that person, but that seems to be a ridiculous thing to hold, if it is true, for it justifies pro-abortion politicians, those who use abortifacient methods of birth control or are abortionists themselves, practicing homosexuals, those who would read the Scriptures and deny things like the Resurrection (in a manner that would make Spong proud) or the Eucharist, the women priest crowd, and a whole host of others with problematic (at the very least) positions being "united" in one Church, if only they acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as head of that Church.

In the one Church of God, how can there be anything other than unity of belief? Sorry, but I side with the Orthodox on that one.

The important thing is that Vatican I is not the final word on the papacy and that it can be mollified, altered and transformed, as it is being done now - and as John Henry Cardinal Newman also argued in his writings to those who saw the papacy as an unchanging absolutist monolith.

But can infallible dogma ever be changed? How do you get to that point without also trashing Vatican I?

Vatican I had no bearing, for instance, on what I saw happen with thousands of youth, including Hindu, Muslim and other youths, who came out to see J2P2 in Toronto in July.

When you pray with thousands from around the world for peace in our time with the Pope in attendance, who cares about Vatican I?

I think you could substitute any ecumenical council in this statement and it would still be true. Most people don't go about their lives worrying about Vatican I, or Ephesus, or whatever, but that doesn't mean we can just cast all that aside.

Dear Mor,

The Ukrainian Catholic Church is the same in faith as The Roman Catholic Church. But we are different from the Roman Catholic Church in our Liturgical traditions.

The Ukrainian Catholic Church is similar to the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches with their common cultural and liturgical traditions.

The Ukrainian Catholic Church and Ukrainian Orthodox Church are different in faith. We accept Papal Primacy, the filoque, and yes even purgatory(purgatory is not really Byzantine ). Obviously, our Orthodox counterparts deny these tenants
viogoursly(As well they should).

Where Ukrainian Orthodoxy and Ukie Catholcism is similar is in their ancient, common, core, Byzantine/Kyivian Church heritage and traditions.

I agree with you that Vatican 1 should be trashed. It is unorthodox to hold any 1 man as infalliable with few safeguards for health, mental condition, and other life ailments. There is no veto power in the Catholic Church. A constitutional monarchy of Bishops could cure this problem .

Steven

Dear Steven,

As an admitted outsider, I want to ask how you can reconcile each of these statements to the others. On the one hand, you acknowledge that you profess the same faith as the Church of Rome and that you accept Papal Primacy (I suppose this would mean what Rome says it means). On the other hand, you think that it is wrong for one man to be held infallible and agree that Vatican I should be trashed. How, then, do you either a) hold the same faith as the Church of Rome, or b) justify communion with people who hold what you deem to be "unorthodox" ideas?