www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Orthodox aren't happy with the Uniates

Dear Friends,

There are a series of articles on this Orthodox site describing the Orthodox reaction to the proposed UGCC patriarchate and also affirming the right of the Moscow Patriarchate to is "jurisdictional" territories:
www.orthodox.org.ua [orthodox.org.ua]

His Beatitude Lubomyr Husar is referred to as "the leader of the uniates, Cardinal Husar, who is known for his provocateur tactics."

It is stated that a recognition of such a patriarchate will lead to a major alienation between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, major schisms etc.

Almost every major Orthodox patriarch is quoted in separate articles saying similar things, including the EP.

One article actually says that Belarus will be giving a "patent" on the title "Orthodox" (?).

Does this mean this forum will have to stop using the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome?"

Patents are not to be messed with!

Ah, the spirit of Christian charity is alive and well in the Eastern world!

Alex

Isn't it sort of ironic that the MP would have so much concern about a church that is not even part of it nor in its eyes even Orthodox? The MP spends most of its time these days seemingly worrying about those "without grace".

I don't recall RCs making this kind of hoopla over any Anglican elections or proclamations. Nor any Orthodox elections for that matter.

I don't recall any Catholic rants for the erection of Orthodox eparchies in places like Spain, Portugal, France, etc. etc. when certainly in those places a percentage of the Orthodox faithful are ex-RCs. When it comes to the MP and Ukraine, it seems the postoley are on the other foot.

Fair warning to inquirers: If you gaze eastward with your eyes wide open be careful that you don�t get a finger in each one!

Alex says in his post:

"It is stated that a recognition of such a patriarchate will lead to a major alienation between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, major schisms etc."

Alex, do you, or does anyone else here on this forum have any idea what the article(s) mean when they state that recognition of a UGCC Patriarchate will lead to major schisms? Major schisms from whom to whom?

Are they expecting large sections of the Orthodox Church to enter into communion with the Bishop of Rome simply because the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has its Patriarchate in Kyiv, and receives recognition for this?

I have video tapes of the Great Consecration of Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow, where one can clearly see Armenian bishops behind the iconostasion. And the Armenians have a Patriarch of Constantinople. None of the Bishops on this video seemed to have any problem with the presence of the Armenians there. I personally was delighted to see the Armenians there. But my point is why, when the Armenians have a Patriarch of Constantinople, are the Armenians treated so amicably, but the Ukrainian Greek Catholics are treated with derision?

It's simply a reality that the Apostolic Churches have parallel jurisdictions and multiple bishops in one city. It has been that way for centuries, with multiple Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and so on.

I think that for the sake of love for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, people should leave the Ukrainian Greek Catholics in peace to have their own Patriarch like everyone else.

Dear Dunstan,

Perhaps they mean that new break-ups will occur within Russian Orthodoxy, or that existing ones will deepen (?). They insist that the recognition of a UGCC patriarchate will prevent any Catholic-Orthodox rapprochement from ever occurring.

The reason for this is essentially that the MP continues to see Kyiv and Ukraine as an integral part of its jurisdiction.

Even more to the point is that the Kyivan Church of St Andrew lies at the root of its claim to being a Patriarchate itself - i.e. that Moscow took over the Apostolic Kyivan tradition of St Andrew, St Clement of Rome and St Volodymyr.

So there can never be an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate of Kyiv, from the MP's point of view, and the UGCC is simply part of Rome's ecclesial colonialism i.e. uniatism.

If Rome is serious about ecumenism, from the point of view of the MP, it should simply move to help the UGCC return to its "Mother Orthodox Church" - the Moscow Patriarchate.

The UGCC of 2004 is, after all, a "breakaway" group from the MP after the synod of 1946 annulled the Union of Brest-Litovsk. That Moscow is unrepentant about that Communist-controlled synod is also shown by the fact that the MP is preparing to glorify Fr. Kostelnyk, who was forced by the Reds to act as their spokesman at the synod, as a "martyr."

(Father Kostelnyk was shot in the back as he left St George's Cathedral after the synod "annulled" the Union of 1596 - the communist press immediately blamed the assassination on Greek-Catholics and it was an obligation, enforced by the communist state, to attend yearly requiem services in honour of the tragic figure of Fr. Kostelnyk, the "martyr of the synod of 1946" - I know because my relatives who were Orthodox priests in Ukraine had to attend those services and told me why they had to.)

The "restoration" of the UGCC in 1991 was the result of external forces moving to encroach upon the historic canonical territory of the MP.

Rome shouldn't be trying to "confirm" the unia by acknowledging a "patriarchate" for the uniates.

This places the UGCC and the UAOC/UOC-KP in a unique position between a Rock (Rome) and a Hard Place (the MP).

No, I don't see Rome acknowledging a UGCC Patriarchate given how Orthodoxy is united against it in this way.

The ball continues to be in the UGCC court and the UGCC's only real friends are the autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox.

The three Rome's have united us in a way we never have been before.

Alex

Friends,

It is important to remember that the history of the UGCC, being born of a Union, is vastly different from that of the Armenian Church.

However interesting Dunstan's comments about the Armenians are I think that it is not terribly helpful when considering the Ukrainian Catholic situation of today. The Ukrainians Catholics were Chalcedonian Orthodox before the Union, the Armenians were not. The dispute over Chalcedon happened long before the evangelization of Rus'. There is a very different history to consider here.

It is truly sad that this tension continues to mount. With goodwill on all sides and prayer perhaps things will get better, if God so wills it.

Tony

I have it on good authority (whom I'm not--or not yet--allowed to name) that one of the fundamental reasons behind Moscow's wildly inflamed reaction to the prospect of a UGCC Patriarchate is that they had a secret deal with Rome and Rome's even allowing this to remain a question on the agenda is viewed by Moscow as the beginning of a sell-out and a breaking of the deal. In witness of this, consider two events: when Rome set up RC dioceses in Russia, Moscow screamed--and then Rome told them to shut up. When Moscow started screaming about the Patriarchate, Rome has not told them to shut up because Rome knows they had a deal and Moscow is mad at the prospects of that deal being broken. Anyway, I am not entirely convinced of this thesis, so I'm waiting to see how it plays out.

In related matters, I have two questions about all this: 1) How on God's earth can Rome justify talking about us without us? Elementary principles of human decency and conduct should forbid that, to say nothing of theology and canon law governign relations between two churches.

2) If we unilaterally declare a patriarchate, what really is going to happen? Moscow already hates us and wants to see the "final solution" (actual words of the Ecumenical Patriarch!) brought to bear on us, so we can't sink into any more opprobrium there. And Rome? What are they going to do? Excommunicate us over this? Ha! Please. A pope who has argued so prominently for so long now that ecumenism and Christian unity are fundamental parts of the Catholic Church's mission, a pope who is himself the son of Slav people, is not about to chop off one of his own. Some in Rome might like that, but it's not going to happen.

So then what? Financial repercussions? Big deal. We can make do. If Rome cut all funding to, say the Church in Ukraine, there are enough of us in the diaspora who would be sufficiently pissed off that we could come up with a big cash injection pronto, thus giving Rome a poke in the eye.

So what then? What is the worst that can happen? Once you realize it's not very much at all, the question is: what is holding us back? What are we afraid of? Why don't we act like the autonomous sister Church we claim to be? Why do we revert constantly to the meek daughter-stern Roman mother model??

Finally, my source from above puts forward this suggestion: at this very moment, our hierarchs should be out personally--or delegating one of their number--to go around and visit each and every one of the Catholic patriarchs (Coptic, Melkite, etc.) and get their support for our declaration of a Kyivan Patriarchate. If we line them all up--and throw in some prominent cardinals and Roman bishops as icing on the cake--and then we declare our patriarchate, do you think Rome is going to stare us all down and tell us to bugger off? It is a classic case of bullying: once confronted, the bully will back down and go home. Problem solved. And if the Orthodox scream, as I have said before they have no leg to stand on given the uncanonical grab-and-run patriarchates they have connived to steal in the past!

It's rather simple to explain: Armenians have
their patriarchate in CONSTANTINOPLE, so Moscow
can treat them differently, even friendly (esp.
in case of a "jurisdiction war" with Constantinople).

"Enemy (?) of our competitor is our ally (?)"

Sincerely,
deacon Peter

Two small remarks:

1) "Brest-Litovsk" is Russian Tsarist name of a Byelorussian city of Bieras'c'e.
2) Kostel'nyk was shot a few years later in
another place.
Of course, he had his memorial
plate in his former Transfiguration church with
wording like "Martyr for the Faith, murdered
by the Uniates".


Sincerely,

deacon Peter

Could this mean that Kostelnyk was shot twice?
Once while leaving the so called synod of 1946 and than once again as deacon Peter insists in another place and time? He must have lost a lot of blood between the two ocassions.
Lauro

Dear Father Deacon Peter,

I wasn't aware of the place where Father Kostelnyk was shot - I only went by what I read on this side of the "pond."

"Brest-Litovsk" is the usual English rendition of the place where the Unia took place - in all references that I have.

But, of course, if you are from Poland or Ukraine, then you know better than all of us put together!

(We North and South American Ukrainians have our views of you guys too, you know! ).

Whatever you say, I stand corrected . . . So what should the proper name for the Brest Union be?

And where was the future Holy New Hieromartyr of the Synod of 1946 shot, if not as he was coming out of St George's Cathedral?

(I believe Met. Ilarion Ohienko is also mistaken about the time and place.)

There are some Russian Orthodox sources who would need correcting too, Father Deacon!

Alex

Dear Father Deacon Peter,

So if we decided to have our UGCC patriarchate in Etchmiadzin, Armenia, it would all be O.K.?

I have always thought, with Fr. Prof. Peter Bilaniuk, that we should join with the Orientals and create our own Kievan "Catholicosate."

A Catholicos has more power than a mere Patriarch, as I understand it.

And once we're formally with the Orientals and are deemed cut off from Orthodoxy AND Catholicism, perhaps both sides will want nothing more to do with us.

"One Divine Nature of God the Word Incarnate . . ."

If it was O.K. with St Cyril of Alexandria, it's O.K. with me!

Alex

Posted by Adam DeVille:

The Eastern Code of Canons authorizes the Pope, as Supreme Pontiff of the universal Catholic Church, to act for and in your behalf, the UGCC, and in behalf of all Particular Churches in the Catholic Communion.

The exercise of such authority is, and can be, delegated to any of the Vatican dicasteries having "jurisdiction" over the matter at hand, the latter being his alter egos.

Cardinal Kasper, our friendly host in Rome per Alex, is tasked on this score as his department is in the forefront of promoting Christian unity. However, I am certain that Cardinal Kasper is in constant communication with Cardinal Husar and with the Congregation for the Eastern Churches.

The Roman Curia functions as the central
"government" of the THE Catholic Church, East and West. Rome has to face-off with the MP, whether we like it or not.

I think the only way the UGCC can supplant Rome in the face-to-face negotiations with the ROC is for His Beatitude, Cardinal Husar, with the approval of the UGCC Holy Synod, to declare publicly and unequivocally the break of Communion with Rome and all be d_mned.

He can then drop his title as Cardinal and start using his patriarchal status. Then let him immediately hie to Moscow and dress Patriarch Alexei down and the rest of the MP hierarchy.

Rome won't excommunicate you! It will just grin and bear it! (Although I am sure the Holy Father will be very sad for another "prodigal son" out of the fold.)

Everybody is free to join or to break away from the Catholic Communion. Only, it has to be done properly.

Initially, UGCC could become "UGC," Ukrainian Greek Church, or, later, "UBC," Ukrainian Byzantine Church, unless you want to retain "Catholic" as part of your new identification? Or, "Ukrainian Slavic Orthodox Church," maybe?

UOC-KP is taken, so will you be willing to be called UOC-LP (Lvi'v Patriarchate)? :p

But what's in a name?

For the UGCC Kyivan Patriarchate!

AmdG

Dear Amado,

Adam was quoting his professor, Father Dr. Andrij Chirovsky who first made that statement publicly.

The point is, I don't see how canon law can affect simple inter-church negotiations.

What Rome is doing is simply bad manners.

If you had a sister and were going out on a first date, wouldn't you want to ask her advice on how best to show your future girlfriend a good time tastefully?

Alex

Father Gabriel Kostelnyk was shot and killed on 20 September 1948, as he was leaving the Church of the Transfiguration to cross the street and return to his apartment. The Soviets tried to force the widow to say that the murder was her son - but she said instead that she had never seen the man before in her life. She then returned to her native Yugoslavia (Kucura, to be precise). The entire family are Greek Catholics. She wrote an article about 25 or 30 years ago describing the affair, stating that Father Gabriel was forced into heading the "Iniatory Group" by the threat that the Soviets would retaliate against his son if the father refused (it was a lie; the son had fled successfully to the West, but Father Gabriel had no way of knowing that). Mrs. Kostelnyk believed that the Soviet secret police murdered her husband, because he knew too much and they did not trust him.
Is the Moscow Patriarchate reviving the proposal to "glorify" Father Gabriel? That could have amusing consequences!
Incognitus