www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News UOC/KP Patriarch Filaret visits UGCC Parish in US

Incognitus writes:

B. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate is NOT autonomous - Moscow has stated this repeatedly.

You obviously do not follow the the goings on with regards to religion in the Ukraine, do you? The UOC-MP received its automony in October 1990 from the Moscow Patriarch. See my reply marked (*) below.

----------

My good friend Alex writes:

[I NEVER said he was a "loyal Ukrainian brother."]

I should hope not. Because he was anything but. He didn't seem to acquire a Ukrainian identity until he was voted over for the position of Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus.

[Nothing in what Patriarch Filaret has said in the past would lead any reasonable person to assume he was against his Ukrainian identity or nation.]

Come on Alex! Didn't you read his greeting to the Soviet representative Anatoly Ivanovich at Patriarch Pimen's funeral I printed? Where, as the acting Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, he along with all the faithful children of the RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH 'expresses sincere
gratitude to the president OF OUR COUNTRY Michail Gorbachev'?

How can you interpret that as his having a separate Ukrainian identity?

Further, read his autobiography printed in RISU which is part of a website maintained by a Ukrainian Catholic university -

Here are some excerpts -

Consistently opposed to the idea of an Autocephalous Ukrainian Church and the Greek Catholic Church, HE CRITICISED UKRAINIAN NATIONALISM. On the eve of a national referendum in March 1991, he called his (UKRAINIAN) faithful to vote in favor of the renewal of the USSR.

In 1990 after the death of Pimen, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus, Filaret became the administrator of the Moscow Patriarchate. (*) In October of that year the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate received the right to govern itself and Filaret received the title �Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine.�

(Note: And as stated previously, it was his own Ukrainian bishops that wanted him out because of his associations with the communists...OrthoMan)

[And I don't think that is a bad thing. It is only bad when one Church wants to lord its own identity over another, as occurred with the Russian Orthodox Church and Ukraine and other Orthodox countries.

If, ultimately, Moscow's definition of canonicty means being in subservience to it, then Ukrainian Orthodox simply won't subscribe to that definition.]

Alex. If the Russian Orthodox Church wanted to lord its identity over the Ukrainian Church it would have never given it AUTOMONY in the first place. Nor would it allow it to have the 'Ukrainian Orthodox Church' identity in its title. I've been to the Ukraine in 1988 while it was still under communism. Every Ukrainian Church I went to had its own Ukrainian flavor & identity.

[Orthoman himself once said words to the effect that Moscow should have helped the Ukrainian Orthodox establish their own canonical patriarchate to avoid all this mess.]

Yes I did. Today I have mixed feelings about it. Basicaly I am still in favor of a canonical Autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church with its own elected Patriarch. But first it has to be strong enough to stand on its feet and be able to defend its Orthodoxy against the Unia mentality I read here and elsewhere. It has to learn that the church is based on its faith which is defined through its doctrines. As much as we all seek unity, it must realize that unity can only be achieved when we adhere to Christ's commandment that -

I Corinthians 1:10

"Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgement.

It must be able to stand together with all Orthodox in the realization that by recognizing the authority of any hierach (example: accepting communion with him) we are recognizing him as a leader and teacher, and as such agreeing with those doctrines he professes, protects, and upholds. Thats why the Unia makes no sense to me when I hear some of the comments here and elsewhere regarding doctrine and what as members of the papal Catholic Church you are required to believe.

I would have more respect for you if I heard you defending the Pope and the doctrines he requires you to believe by the very fact that you are 'in Communion' with him and therefore 'under his authority'. Instead, all I hear is confusion in everything but loyality to Ukraine. Thats why you come off to outsiders as you do.

Statements like 'we will then be in communion with both Rome and Constantinople' shows a great immaturity on the part of any church that proclaims such a thing at this time. Because it sees the Church as not based on beliefs and doctrines handed down by the ecumenical councils and the early church fathers but as an earthy institution centered around nationalism, politics, and etnic rivalry.

To place ones doctrines as secondary to ones hierachal recognition is Protestant. It is neither Roman Catholic or Orthodox Catholic.

[And I would also like to see the Ukrainian Catholic Church reintegrated with a future, canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate based in Kyiv, not Moscow. This Patriarchate could then have relations with others, including Rome and Moscow.

Then -

Why is it that canonical world Orthodoxy is refusing that same right to Ukrainian Orthodoxy?]

Depends on what you mean by 'relations' Alex. The last sentence of your first comment should be the answer to the question you ask in the last sentence. Reference my answer to your previous comment.

The question of Ukrainian autocephally has not been dropped. It is still being discussed between the EP and the MP as we speak. Especially in the last two months. And, I'm convinced it will become a reality.

I hope your health improves dear Alex. I will light a candle for you in front of the Icon of St Panteliemon and say a pray for you. If you want I will ask my priest if we can send you a QTip with the Holy Myrrh from the skull of St Panteliemon brought back from Russia when this most precious relic was taken from Mount Athos to Christ The Saviour Cathedral a few years ago. It was brought back by one of our parishioners. Only problem is my priest is very hesitant in sending such a precious gift through the mails. When the Oil first arrived he sent out a few Qtips and only received one acknowledgement. Thats why he stopped.

OrthoMan

OrthoMan,
I once made the mistake of calling it "the" Ukraine, and got stomped on.

Any thoughts on my question about primacy/canonicity? Particularly in light of your quotation from St. Paul.

It seems to me that Christ intended His followers to avoid factions by their allegiance to His Vicar ("upon this Rock . . ."). Orthodoxy seems to be crippled by factions right now--maybe there is some relation?

Diak, from what I understand, Rome's official position is that it is incorrect to call the Holy See a "sister Church." The different "particular churches" are sisters to one another, but the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has its HQ in Rome and is *Mother* to all particular churches, East and West.

Admin, am I in bounds?

L-T

From Fr. Ron Roberson�s book: �The Eastern Christian Churches� (the section on the MP):

Responding to demands in Ukraine for greater autonomy, on October 27, 1990, the Bishops� Council abolished the exarchate and granted �independence and self-government� to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. But the church remained linked to Moscow, and the Metropolitan of Kiev still served as a member of the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate. After Ukraine declared its independence on August 24, 1991, Metropolitan Filaret of Kiev began to seek complete separation of his church from the Moscow Patriarchate. The Russian Orthodox Bishop�s Council turned down this request in April 1992. But Filaret continued to seek autocephaly for his church, and matters came to a head in May 1992 when the Moscow Patriarchate deposed Filaret and appointed Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan) of Rostov as new Metropolitan of Kiev. In June the Patriarchate defrocked Filaret and reduced him to the lay state. Subsequently Filaret joined the non-canonical Ukrainian Autocephalous Church and was elected its Patriarch.

LatinTrad writes:

[Tentatively, therefore, I would like to ask OrthoMan and OE a question (and I am truly asking): What is canonicity and who gets to hand it out?]

Perhaps as a Papal Catholic of the Latin tradition you can tell us.

If you read the very first post on this thread which got this discussion going in the first place, you will see that -

A self proclaimed Patriarch that was excommunicated from a canoncal Orthodox Church concelebrates in a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church with UGC clergy.

I was under the impression that the Papal Catholic Church and all its appendages consider only those Churches 'In Comunion with Rome' as canonical.

But in this instance we have a DEPOSED Hierach NOT IN COMMUNION WITH ROME, and as such noncanonical by Romes standards, serving an Eastern Rite Liturgy with Papal Catholic Eastern Rite priests. The only thing in common with this scenerio is that they are all Ukrainians. Does the Pope sanction such goings on?

That's like one of our Orthodox priests concelebrating with the self proclaimed 'His Holiness Pope Pius XIII' of the 'True Catholic Church'.

http://www.truecatholic.org/pope/biography.htm

I would ask you to perhaps straighten things out for us confused Orthodox regarding which of the two self proclaimed Orthodox Patriarchs in the Ukraine is canonical and which isn't. But obviously the Papal Catholic Church has just as much confusion within its ranks or this concelebration should never have happened in the first place!

OrthoMan

OrthoMan,

I don't think the Pope would sanction such concelebration (?), but for us it wouldn't make a difference whether Filaret were from the "canonical" MP or the "uncanonical" KP since, as you correctly noted, the West doesn't recognize either.

If you want ME to tell YOU what canonicity is, I can do that--I was hoping for some friendly discussion of your point of view, however, instead of a flippant reply.

This is the traditional position of the Catholic Church:
--All the Orthodox jurisdictions retain valid Holy Orders and valid sacraments, since they never got rid of the essential "matter & form."
--Nevertheless, Christ founded one Church and gave the primacy to St. Peter who passed it on to St. Linus, thence to St. Cletus, thence to St. Clement, and so on down to John Paul II. Christ's Church is the ordinary means of salvation. Formal schism from that Church cuts one off from salvation.
--All Catholic/Orthodox Christians recognized the necessity of communion with the Roman See prior to the upstart Photius.

When and where formal schism has existed (or exists) has been debated. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church remains firm in her claim to be the one link to Christ, and His Mystical Body on earth.

Remember that you asked me to tell you!

L-T

OrthoMan, Can I ask that you be respectful towards people you disagree with? The term �Papal Catholic� is well known to be derogatory. On the Forum we ask that people describe people and groups using the terms such people and groups use to describe themselves, unless there is a special reason not to do so and that reason is given. Thanks!

That statement is incorrect. The Catholic Church has been extremely clear (especially in Orientale Lumen) that the bishops of the Orthodox Church are fully canonical and exercise legitimate authority over all those entrusted to their pastoral care.

The questions concerning Patriarch Filaret and his activities are very fair. I have not studied the issue and cannot comment on specifics. The ecumenical prayer service was not the equivalent of a joint celebration of the Eucharist at a Divine Liturgy. One can compare it to Orthodox participation in WCC events or even Orthodox participation in ecumenical services during the �Week of Christian Unity� every January. Christians coming together to witness what they hold common and acknowledging differences cannot really be labeled as the equivalent of a joint celebration of the Eucharist. It appears to me that the UGCC is treating the UOAC as simply a real, existing Christian denomination within Ukraine that it wishes to have friendly relations with.

The Catholic Church is quite clear that the Orthodox Church is indeed canonical and that Orthodox bishops exercise legitimate authority over those entrusted to their pastoral care. Please read �Orientale Lumen� for a quick primer on this issue. OL does not address the specific issue of which groups within Orthodoxy are to be considered canonical, but other documents do indicate that the ancient patriarchates and those in communion with them are to be considered canonical. It does not really comment on breakaway groups and appears to simply work to create friendly relations.

Dear Admin,
Very well put. Unfortunately there seem to be people on this thread that don't understand what friendly relations means. Patriarch Husar has always made invitations to the UOC-MP to participate in prayer and the only ones that have accepted such an invitation are the UAOC and the UOC-KP. Patriarch Husar went as far as to say that Patriarch Alexis would be treated as an honored guest at his residence in Lviv if he would come one day to visit UKraine, but at such invitations we only hear the cold wind blow, and if you listen closely and with a lot of attention you just might be able to hear a fly fart. There's not much left to say now is there?
Lauro

Does that mean that, according to Rome, Alexei had the authority to defrock Filaret? I wonder . . .

This is all very interesting.

L-T

Yes. Patriarch Alexi does have the authority to defrock Filaret (assuming that it is done according the canons of the Orthodox Church).

Latin Trad, read Lumen Gentium from Vatican II, the document on the Eastern Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum) or the encyclical Orientale Lumen. Communion is not synonymous with subservience or submission.

While we belong to the One, Holy and Apostolic Church (Catholic, not Roman Catholic) we are indeed a church sui iuris or of our own right as are the Melkites, Romanians, etc.

We are not Roman Catholics. We are Ukrainian Catholcs, Melkites, etc. in communion with the Pope of Rome. There is a distinction. While everyone in a particular family may belong to that family "in communion", they are individual brothers and sisters, and have their own identities and personalities. They keep both their family identity as a whole and their individual identity.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
The Catholic Church is quite clear that the Orthodox Church is indeed canonical and that Orthodox bishops exercise legitimate authority over those entrusted to their pastoral care.

It does not really comment on breakaway groups and appears to simply work to create friendly relations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does that mean that, according to Rome, Alexei had the authority to defrock Filaret? I wonder . . .

This is all very interesting.

L-T [QUOTE]

In deference to the comment of the Admin, in the case of Filaret the Ukrainian Catholic Church addresses him in public as "Patriarch Filaret".

The Catholic Church in general leaves issues of 'canonicity' as internal disputes for the Orthodox. The Catholic CHurch in general is more concerned with apostolic succession, valifity of orders and sacraments, etc. in terms of ecumenical dialogue.

Another example is the official relations between the Greek Catholic Exarchate of Macedonia and the Macedonian Orthodox Church which is not recognized as 'canonical' by many Orthodox Churches. The canonicity is not questioned as this is an internal Orthodox affair.

LatinTrad writes:

[Remember that you asked me to tell you! ]

Yes you did and I thank you for sharing it. Even though as an Orthodox Catholic, I disagree. Especially the part where you state -

[--All Catholic/Orthodox Christians recognized the necessity of communion with the Roman See prior to the upstart Photius.]

That gave me a little chuckle!

I don't want to respond to this particular subject matter here because it will take the current discussion away from the initial subject matter.

I will respond by recommending the following website to you regarding Peter and the 'Rock' giving the Orthodox Catholic view on the subject. It was initiated by a former Byzantine Catholic who is now Orthodox Catholic.

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/rock.html

If you have questions or comments use the private email section to contact me rather than get on another 'Peter & The Rock' debate.

Orthoman

Dear Diak:

Thank you for one more example of how the EC Churches are oftentimes able to see past the church politics of yester-year and move toward a true unity of Christian love and understanding.

If others want to attack us for it - I say bring it on!

Yours,

kl

I am not sure exactly what conclusion Diak is suggesting. The Catholic Church does not recognize the orders of Protestant Churches (like the Church of England) and yet refers to the Archbishop of Canterbury as the Archbishop of Canterbury. I attribute the usage of the term �archbishop� to be one of respect that a person holds such a position in another church. In the case of Patriarch Filaret of the UOAC I think that Patriarch Lubomyr is merely being respectful. This does not mean that he is commenting one way or another on Patriarch Alexi�s deposition of Filaret from the ROC-MP.

Diak, I don't think that I implied anything to the contrary. Dominus Iesus discusses use of the term "sister churches," however. It makes clear that the local or particular churches may be called sister churches to one another--e.g. the UGCC is a sister to the Ruthenian Catholic Church, etc. However, it is incorrect, according to Dominus Iesus, to refer to the One, Holy and Apostolic Church as a "sister church"; for she is the Mother.

I'm sorry for my obscurity.

L-T

By the way, Diak's words quoted above are the clearest explanation of the ECC's that I've run into. Long Live the Two Lungs of the One Church!!