www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News ARCHBISHOP CLEMENT RECEIVES A REPRESENTATIVE OF VATICAN

Alex --

I agree, but it seems that there is a lot of disagreement with that among Catholics, as Kurt's note indicates, and as is confirmed by the article made available through "Aid to the Church in Russia" -- an organization which is not one of these Transalpine groups, but which is canonically RC with the full blessing of the Vatican and led by a Latin Rite Catholic who is a graduate of the Russicum.

Brendan

Fine point of history: the late Archbishop Elko, when he was the Ruthenian bishop of Pittsburgh, was not Archbishop. That "elevation" only occurred after he was "recalled" to Rome.

Our first Archbishop, Stephen Kocisko, was referred to as Metropolitan as soon as the Metropolitan see of Munhall (now Pittsburgh) was created. In Elko's time there were only the Eparchies of Pittsburgh and Passaic - no Metropolia structure existed for anyone to be a Metropolitan of.

Fine point of history: the late Archbishop Elko, when he was the Ruthenian bishop of Pittsburgh, was not Archbishop. That "elevation" only occurred after he was "recalled" to Rome.

Our first Archbishop, Stephen Kocisko, was referred to as Metropolitan as soon as the Metropolitan see of Munhall (now Pittsburgh) was created. In Elko's time there were only the Eparchies of Pittsburgh and Passaic - no Metropolia structure existed for anyone to be a Metropolitan of.

Thanks, Rich. I forgot the timeline. The first Ruthenian eparchies in America other than Pittsburgh were created around the end of the 1960s, after Nicholas Elko's reassignment.

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Brendan,

Agreed.

When it comes to the Orthodox, not all Catholics are as wonderful as me!

Alex

I apprecaite Brendan's response because it does help clear up some of the points here. I would clarify, first, that I don't think the Catholic Church for certain has some plan to increase its "market share" in Russia. In fact, I think the Church to its credit does NOT think in terms of "market share" (I know certain critics of the Catholic Church will not accept this; no need t respond).

Given that the vast majority of posters here have spent some time as Roman Catholics, I can see why the discussion often has the RCC has the centerpoint. But for a momement, let's move to the ROC. The issue is less what the Catholic Church's intentions may be towards non-Christian Russians. The question is what is the ROC's intentions towards non-Christian Russians?

Other than "claiming" them has her children, nothing more seems to be done. Is their any convincing evidence that their actually will be a day, some time in the future, when these people hear for the first time the Christian message?

Until the ROC gets over the self-satisfied "We are the Church of Russia" and starts pastoral ministry, she is doomed.

The future is in the ROC's own hands. It s not the Catholic Church or the Baptists or the Salvation Army, it the ROC's. And the world is waiting for her answer.

K.

Dear Brother Kurt,

Agreed, to be sure.

But there is a great deal of instability in Russia right now and the western missionaries of whatever denominational cloth are not exploiting this situation for their own ends.

Friends of ours in Ukraine, for example, have become members of evangelical groups and the Roman Catholic Church in the hope of obtaining material benefits. One of them is in your Grand Republic right now.

And none of them, if their letters can be believed, have any intention of staying with any of their new-found denominations or Churches.

And we should avoid our North American tendency to see the rest of the world through the prism of our democratic and pluralist experience.

Russia "ain't so" through no greater fault that it has always been thus in Russia and elsewhere for centuries.

The best way to help further the Cause of Christ for the West is to assist the Russian Orthodox Church to catechize the Russian people and bring them to the Christ Who is certainly and fully present in that Church.

Alex

Side note:

"Dublin is historically English turf"

This is not even remotely accurate.

Historically, the See was Irish (4th through the mid 12th century). It was not taken over by the Cambro-Normans (who were not English either, but let's not let the facts get in the way) until the middle of the 12th century. So, you could argue that once Dublin became part of “the Pale” it was then not technically Irish. But that would last from mid 12th century to mid 16th century only. The break of England with the Church also broke the See of Dublin with the Church. At which point the Catholic See went underground and every single recusant, especially the archbishop and priests were considered Irish and not English by those very English. During this time the See reverted back again to the hands of many Gaelic stock archbishops.

If you are talking about secular history of Dublin, well, it is much the same except for the fact that it was Irish up until the Danes (who are what the aforementioned Norman's are; Vikings who conquered and controlled what came to be known as Normandy) arrived and made it a minor kingdom in the 9th century. But, that lasted only as long as the beginning of the 11th century when the power and name of the Danes was broken for good at the battle of Clontarf in A.D. 1014. After that the Danes adopted the religion, language, laws, and customs of the Irish and became undistinguishable with the native Gaelic Irish; much like the Cambro-Normans of the later period.

So, Dublin, both secular and holy, was Irish with brief interludes of Danes, Cambro-Normans and the continued Protestant English.

Dear Friends, I believe the true enemy of the ROC will be secular modern western culture which will damage it more severely than Western Christianity, communism, or vodka. Sad to say, but I think this is what Christians need to focus on. Just my humble thoughts. Vito

"Dublin is historically English turf"

This is not even remotely accurate.

The original quotation was intended as bait, making fun of my view that the three Russias are one.

The Germanic people of England and the Celtic people of Ireland are of different ethnoi. Not so Russians and Ukrainians: a better analogy would be Spaniards in Aragon and gallegos on the Portuguese border. Distinct groups? Sure! There are even some cultural differences — gallego is a half-separate language, basically a transitional dialect from Spanish to the close sister language of Portuguese (which I can read, knowing Spanish). But they can be spoken of as one Iberian people.

Not all southern Irishmen hate the English. Many served in the British armed forces in World War II and even after complete Irish independence in 1949. I have met one who served in the RAF in the '50s, even though he is from the Republic originally.

Nobody ever called Dublin the mother of English cities, but Kiev is known as the mother of Russian cities.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 02-11-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Holy Metropolitan Philaret, Count Grabbe, and many others predicted that Russia, after suffering many years of Communist oppression, would become the defenseless virgin that Rome could not resist violating. And what is more despicable but to take advantage of those who, after decades of suffering, are to weak to defend themselves?

Here we have the true spirit of Catholicism unambiguously revealed.


But they were mocked and humiliated; labeled fanatics and "fools for Christ." (Actually, a great complement within the Russian tradition.)

Maybe they were all of those things. But, in light of the facts and Rome's own self-revelation of her intentions to impose an alien religion upon Russia, they certainly cannot be accused to being what our "ecumenist" hierachs are: confreres of Judas.

As the Abbot of Zographou said of Kallistos Ware: "As he ages, he returns to his Anglican roots."

Such has been our foolishness and such are the consequences of our apostasy.

But a different spirit prevails in Mother Greece, even (ironically) among the so-called secularists.

FG

[ 02-11-2002: Message edited by: Free Greek ]

Dear Friends, I believe the true enemy of the ROC will be secular modern western culture which will damage it more severely than Western Christianity, communism, or vodka. Sad to say, but I think this is what Christians need to focus on. Just my humble thoughts. Vito

AMEN!

http://oldworldrus.com

Bless me a sinner, Reader Serge!

"Three Russias are one."

If you are ever at a Ukrainian perogie banquet and are asked to address the assembled, I wouldn't begin my speech with this statement.

You might want to perhaps wait until everyone has had their fill of (strong) alcoholic drink before attempting this one.

Just a word to the Wise!

Alex

“...and they certainly feel no reason to apologize for the Unia.”

Can someone please explain “why” there “needs” to be an apology for the Unia?

As I am new to the Byzantine Catholic Rite, I have seen and heard much from them about the treatment of them from both Rome and their Orthodox brethren. Frankly, given what I've learned I can not help but think that the Orthodox brethren are simply being jealous and overbearing and that Rome more often than not (in order to placate the Orthodox) move quietly and on egg shells with regard to anything that is valid and needed for the Eastern Catholics – almost like they are embarrassed by them. I would call the whole situation pathetic.

I would humbly suggest the Orthodox get over it already and that Rome quit being so afraid to give the pallium to Eastern Catholic prelates in public – in a queer way it reminds me of the ridiculous, childish and petty games of high school – and this from adults – simply sad.

Of course, it is entirely possible I have my facts wrong; thus I am open to correction and if proven wrong would certainly state so. Anyone?

“I pray that they all may be one”

With my fingers held layman-style, the blessing of the Lord!

Of course I would not press the issue with postwar-immigration Ukrainians. Understandable as the wound inflicted by the Soviets destroyed pan-Russian sentiment in Ruthenia.

But the Ukrainians at my own church believe this. So do at least some in your beloved Dominion whose families emigrated around the turn of the last century. I know a lovely older lady from Alberta with a wonderful Canadian accent ( asking how I've "bean' ) who identifies herself as Russian. (She also makes wonderful woollen sweaters that can substitute for jackets on dry winter days.) So do those who followed St Alexis Toth into the Russian metropolia, and so do their descendants in the OCA today. So did an English friend in England, whose mother was Ukrainian. So have Kievan-born friends, whose main language is Russian.

People descended from "pre-national' Ukrainians often do not identify themselves as Ukrainian.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 02-11-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Dear Donnchadh,

In a nutshell, you've stated what I've always believed.

I've been called "Anti-Catholic" and "having an Anti-Orthodox attitude" for so saying.

But I really think it's because I'm considered to be such a push-over that people say these things about me.

You, on the other hand, with that Celtic screen-name, have a much more affirmative presence and I doubt that many will want to contend with you .

We Eastern Catholics have been bashed by both Rome and the Orthodox.

Perhaps we deserve it.

But we're here, for heavens' sake, however we got here.

We deserve to be treated with respect within the democratic context of religious and cultural pluralism.

If we are not, then that says more about those who attack us, than about us.

Alex