www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pope Benedict XVI had a Greek Catholic roomate

My friends in France have informed me that while attending the seminary in Germany shortly after WW2, Pope Benedict XVI was roomates with Fr. Petro Bohun who is now a priest of L'Eglise Ukrainienne Greco-Catholique en France (Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) in France).

If this is true, then the Pope most certainly is well versed (and probably has been for a long time) with the affairs of the largest Greek (Byzantine) Catholic Church in the world.

I.F.

Ivane:

So what? JPII was also well versed with our affiairs. Didn't help any in recognition of our Patriarchate, did it?

(Not that we need Rome to recognize it, of course)

hal

Yes, Pope John Paul II most certainly did help and wanted to take the final decision - he himself said so to the bishops. He brought the Church much closer to this desired goal. And it is not ridiculous to hope that Benedict XVI will take the final step, to honour John Paul II's assurance.

Incognitus

Dear Friends,

I myself, for the longest time, held these two things against St John Paul the Great - the beatification of Andrew Sheptytsky and the lack of acknowledgement of the UGCC patriarchate.

I feel very badly about it and have come to realize my error and even what I would say is my sin in this.

Sheptytsky will be beatified in due course, doubtless by Pope Benedict himself at some point.

The patriarchate thing is a complicated matter that affects, much as we Ukies hate to admit it, the very hope of ecumenical rapprochement between East and West.

I hold out a greater hope for a unified Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate of Kyiv, in union with Constantinople which will come about with the help too of the Kyivan government of Victor Yuschenko.

There is nothing preventing us from already honouring Sheptytsky as many of us do. There is nothing preventing us from being the Patriarchal Church we've declared ourselves to be.

Pope John Paul II NEVER told us not to call ourselves a patriarchate or our primate a patriarch.

ULtimately, even if Rome recognized our patriarchate - what would that really change in terms of how our church operates already?

I don't think it will change much. It will make Ukrainians very happy, but for other than purely religious reasons.

I could see the pressing need for a patriarchate in the wake of Ukraine's former enslavement under Moscow.

But now it is more important for us to "be ourselves"

And St John Paul the Great's contribution to that is that he showed us how to be Catholic and yet be very devoted to our Particular Church and national identity.

No other pope has ever done that.

O Holy Ecumenical Pontiff, St John Paul the Great, Pope of Rome, pray unto God for us!

Alex

That was well stated. Here is a more comprehensive assesment of John Paul II's role in establishing the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Patriarchate in Kyiv.

A Pope for all People [tol.cz]


I.F.

There is no doubt that JPII had a good historical
perspective of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church of Galicia. This brings up another question about JPII's maternal grandmother's (prababa) Greek Catholic heritage. Was JPII's grandmother a Ukrainian from Central Galicia, or a
Greek Catholic from Belarus'? I've have heard she was born in the village of Biala, Poland (that borders Belarus'). Is Biala the village were JPII's "prababa" was born and raised? Does anyone have any info about JPII's maternal grandmother's Greek Catholic roots??

Ung-Certez

I have a few comments for Orthodox Catholic, anyone can respond.

First I must admit I am new to this forum, so alot of things went over my head that you were speaking about. So if I totally miss the issue, please forgive me.

You express a hope for an Ukranian Orthodox Patriachate. I cannot understand why. I gather that you are attempting to intellectually bridge the Orthodox/Catholic gap, and forsee a reunion in the near future. If this is the correct interpretation of your post, I must say this is a very courageous and pious view. I too nourish hope for a reunion.

However, I think you are jumping the gun in treating the reunion as if it already were. Relations between Rome and the Orthodox are still severely impaired, and will remain so for many years to come. The sad fact of the matter is that they are still in schism.

In lieu of this fact, it is obvious that Eastern Catholics are THE True Church in the East, and have every right to be treated as such by the Papacy, even considering the close approximation of Orthodoxy to IT.

In issues like this, I think John Paul II was too concerned with finessing the Orthodox and not concerned enough with protecting and nourshing faithful Eastern Catholics. The latter was a strict DUTY for him, while the former was not. It seems that you originally recognized this, but that you reconsidered.

I note that it is in no way sinful for a faithful Catholic to disagree with the Pope in matters such as this. Aside from the fact that Pope JPII was EXTREMELY pious and holy, I found many things he did detrimental to the Church. This in no way detracted from my obedience and love for him.

As a Byzantine Catholic, I find myself under the shepherd's watchful gaze of His Holiness Benedict the Pope of Rome; however, I do not see the Orthodox Catholic churches are THE eastern churches. The Orthodox Church is just as valid a church as any. Four of the five apostolic patriachates upon which Christianity was originally built are contained within the Orthodox Church, and communion between these five churches and their hierarchs is a goal to which all Christians ought to give prayerful thought. While each church (the Catholic and Orthodox) has managed on its own for the past millenia, they are both missing a chunk of themselves. In short, the Eastern Catholic churches are not more important than the Orthodox, which I seemed to get out of a post on here. Indeed, the west, and the Catholic East, could learn much from the Orthodox Church, and vice-versa.

We ought to seek unity through Christ in all our Christian brothers.

Christos Voskres!

A tangential remark, if you don't mind:

This remark is frequently made, and sometimes (presumably not above) given great weight. But there is less to it, IMO, than meets the eye. Christians in the territories from the early Alexandrian Church (Egypt, Eritria, and Ethiopia) are hugely Oriental Orthodox, notwithstanding a "Greek Orthodox" Patriarch (among others) in Alexandria. In the Middle East there have, of course, been several divisions, and there are several Patriarchs. Currently, if Roberson's numbers are right, Eastern Catholics comprise a healthy majority of Eastern Christians there. Only in the historical lands of the EP are Christians predominantly EO.

It would seem to me the value of the apostolic patriarchs of the East and West is mostly seen in the fact they are indeed apostolic, and have brought down - in their own ways - the traditions entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, who personally knew him. The numbers may show where the faith seems to be strongest - or at least most prevalent - but numbers should not, in my mind, indicate the importance of a given leader of the Church that is the Body of Christ - regardless of what we men have managed to do to it.

However, while I feel those key patriarchs ought to hold a certain position within the Church, I do feel as if the Eastern tradition of local, autonomous churches - at least in the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches - is a marvelous idea, and provides great benefits to their members.

Trying to sum up the ideas I have presented here, I feel many local churches that address the basic needs of the populace in a given area works well to provide realistic, culturally significant guidance for a group of people, while the apostolic patriarchs provide the Church with necessary guidance - in my mind, probably in a primus inter peres (did I get that right?) relationship.

Christos Voskres

Chotkimeister,
I greet you respectfully in the Lord Jesus Christ.
I of course, recognize the Apostolic origin of the Orthodox Churches. Most of their tradition is substantially the same. The Orthodox schism is EXCRUCIATING, and indeed may be partly blamed on human beings who happened to be Catholic.

The Catholic Church itself, however, cannot be blamed for this schism, for it is of divine origin. Moreover, Dogmatically it is endowed with Divine Character. In other words, the Catholic Church has not fallen by the wayside, it remains and has always been the ONLY True Church of Christ, whether or not a substantial portion has split from it. Eastern Catholics, therefore are now the ONLY True Church of Christ in the East, though we all nourish hopes for reunion.

As Our Lady of Fatima indicated, the Orthodox need to return to the full Unity of the Catholic Church with which it was endowed by Christ. To deny the Unity of the Church of Christ, (I.E. to say that the Orthodox consitute some portion of Christ's True Church although unity is not fully visible), is to deny the fundamental Dogma that the Church is One (as in ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC).

When you indicate that the Orthodox Churches are "just as valid"; if you mean by this that their Sacraments are just as valid in the juridical sense, I agree.
But if you mean by this that there is no difference between Catholic and Orthodox at this point, I can't. The Orthodox still refuse communion with us, and this is in large part why they are still in schism.

Dear Chotkimeister:

As I mentioned, my post was a tangent to yours.

It is responsive to other posts that appear here and there, in which the idea that "four of the five apostolic patriachates upon which Christianity was originally built are contained within the Orthodox Church" is taken as an objective fact that is weighty in support of other claims. (E.g., four of five of the five Patriarchs agreed that Rome was wrong about ...)

In fact, this proposition is a claim in itself, not a simple, objective fact - regardless of whether one views these churches in terms of the faithful of the region, or in terms of apostolic lineage of the presiding hierarchs.

There are five Patriarchs "of" Antioch: The Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, and Supreme Head of the Syriac Orthodox Church; The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East; Patriarch of Antioch and All the East of the Syrians (Syrian Catholics); Patriarch of Antioch and All the East of the Maronites; The Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, Alexandria and Jerusalem of the Greek Melkites. There are three other Patriarchs of Alexandria: Coptic Orthodox, Coptic Catholic, and Greek Orthodox.

I am not sure of the views on succession that each of the hierarchs has; I would hazard a guess, however, that there might be some disagreement on the idea of what, exactly, is contained in which.

First of all, I would like to appologize if my stance has appeared anti-Roman or any such thing. Personally, I feel both sides of the divide are to blame - we're all human. Physically, as far as the humanity of it is concerned, I would say the Church of Christ seems to be in quite a mess. Spiritually, I believe both Orthodox and Catholic Christians are capable of being in communion with the Holy Spirit, even if we humans cannot manage to get along.

Yes, I agree that in many ways the Orthodox Churches have failed to bring about full communion with the apostolic church of Rome; however, Rome has played a similar role in this entire situation. Neither side is blameless, neither is fully to blame. People are people; however, our inability to get along will never hinder the Holy Spirit from providing all true-believing Christians with communion through the Most Precious Body and the Life Giving Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ.

Consider the fact that the Roman Catholic Church says a different Creed from the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches. This doesn't mean anyone is going to Hell over it - although I hardly know whether or not my version of the Creed might land me there, though I believe it will not.

Also, remember who founded the churches now known as the patriarchates of the east...Saints Andrew, Peter, Mark, Paul, James...The Apostolic nature of Rome is similarly represented in the other patriarchates, Rome jsut happens to be the highest of the five, while being a fellow bishopric in Christ.

Christos Voskres!