www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ukrainian Patriarchate

UAOC, I think, is the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

UOC-KP is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyivan Patriarchate.

Of course, there is another explanation of "KP", it is the old GI phrase, "kitchen patrol".

How much of this is Russia's desire to dominate Ukraine and how much of this is based upon a desire to remain separate from Catholics?

CDL

Thank you, Dan, for saying that.

As a "schismatic uniate", I say "enough". If I were Patriarch Lubomyr (thank God I am not), I would send missionaries into Russia, and set up a Russian Greek Catholic Church. Kyiv would be the seat of the Patriarchate, and Moscow would be a Metropolitanate, subject to Kyiv, and part of the Synod of Bishops of the UGCC. But, then the name of the jurisdiction would have to change. Perhaps, the Greek Catholic Church of Rus! (or Kyivan Rus?). I say all of this because I do not think that Moscow is the least bit serious about Christian unity. There is very little chance (unless the Holy Spirit gets directly involved, and practically forces a change of heart-and, I would never rule that out!)that the Moscow Patriarchate, as a body, would ever seriously reconsider re-estabishing full communion with the Catholic Church. Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with an "ecumenism of return" (i.e., an ecumenism which stresses that the Catholic Church is in possession of the "fullness of the Faith", and that others should be invited to explore this truth) which "liberal" Catholics find so objectionable. I speak from the heart. If I felt otherwise, integrity would demand that I join the Church which I believed to be in possession of the full Faith! Better that we (Catholics and non-Catholics) should agree to disagree, than to pretend that we are on the "same page".

Dn. Robert

Father Deacon,

I agree with you about Russia. They are not serious. But His All Holiness Bartholomew seems quite serious. What about that part of the equation?

CDL

Patriarch Bartholomew studied at the Orientalum. He knows the "Roman mind". He seems more serious about unity. I would run with that. But I would never compromise on issues of Dogmatic definition, etc. One matter of concern from the past: around 1996 or 1997, he made a statement that the Orthodox Church was "ontologically different" from the Catholic Church. If he is still with that, that could be problematic.

Dn. Robert

But according to the Vatican, to which you profess obedience, there is no Patriarch Lubomyr.

Grace and peace,
Rd. John

There is a Patriarch Lubomyr - we commemorate him in every liturgical service. We are a particular Church, not a Latin Church. I don't know where you get the idea of "profess obedience"; the Union of Brest does not use such language. Full communion, yes; recognize the primacy of the successor of Peter, yes.

Reader John,

My understanding of Patriarchate is that it is something that comes into being, over time, as a particular church matures and grows, and then is subsequently recognized officially. Perhaps I have a deficient understanding. But, the UGCC has matured and grown over time, esp. since 1991. It has become a "real" Church. (I am not of the UGCC, but of the Pittsburgh Metropolia of the (Carpatho-Rusyn) Byzantine Catholic Church in the USA). I would say that it (the UGCC) is a lot more real than much of what passes for Eastern Christendom in the Diaspora. The prior Pope, and the present one, have stated their opinions that they would like to recognize the UGCC as a Patriarchate. However, Rome's relations with the Moscow Patriarchate have become the "fly in the ointment" in so far as such recognition goes.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

I pray that the roc has a change of heart.

Dn Robert,

Ah, that makes sense, then. I think the difference comes form us working with different understandings of where the title of Patriarch comes into being.

It was my understanding that the title of patriarch had nothing to do with whether or not a Church was a real Church, but rather that it was a title of honor recognizing the venerable history of a given particular Church and that, as such, the title of Patriarch had to be bestowed by others, either by an ecumenical council, other patriarchates, or in your case, the Roman Patriarch, not claimed by a particular church for itself. Thus it is that several of the autocephalous local Churches within the Orthodox communion are headed by Metropolitans or Archbishops, and not Patriarchs.

It was further my understanding that Rome had specifically declined, as of yet, to grant the title of Patriarch to the Major Archbishop of the UGCC. I'm not saying that Rome wouldn't like to bestow the title or that it won't be given in the future, just that to this point, Rome has not given or recognized the title.

Thus it seemed odd to me to hear you both profess loyalty to the Catholic faith as proclaimed by Rome and yet use titles not recognized by Rome.

But it seems we're working with different understandings of the history? Do you know of any other examples of the title being unilaterally assumed, rather than granted by others?

Grace and peace,
Rd John

Reader John,

In the case of Kyiv, I wouldn't say that the UGCC unilaterally claims Patriarchate status for itself, since that city was the location of the seat of the Patriarchate of the Church of Kyivan Rus for years. The Patriarchate was moved to Moscow, for practical reasons, only after the sack of Kyiv. Most Ukrainians, both Greek Catholic and Orthodox, would argue that there is a strong historical basis for restoring Kyiv as the city of the Patriarchate. Our poster, Diak, above, has pointed out that the liturgical books of the UGCC commemorate the "Major Archbishop" of Kiev-Halych as the Patriarch. I could be wrong, but the fact that Rome has done nothing to "discipline" the UGCC, in my mind, adds up to a tacit recognition of Patriarchal status. It is the politics of ecumenism with Moscow which prevents a full-blown formal recognition.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

I think you are right about this. Someone in some kind of authority, either council or pope, would have to support the title of Patriarch for it to have any real validity. Otherwise, the other churches would probably not recognize it. Now whether or not the Ukrainian Catholic Major Archbishop deserves the title is another matter completely. He seems to be an exemplary leader and a good man, so I am certain he is worthy of the title. But he doesn't have it yet, at least on any basis recognized by Rome. And that's the thing about being Catholic, the view held by the Pope does matter. As far as I know, Pope Benedict hasn't addressed this. The Orthodox aren't going to recognize the title no matter what Rome does.

Dn Robert,

Historically, though, there never was a patriarch in Kyiv when the city was the seat of the Church of Kievan Rus'. There was a metropolitan, but it wasn't until a while after the see was moved to Moscow that it was elevated to the status of a patriarchate, which has continued to this day as the Moscow Patriarchate.

And so, it's not a matter of restoring the title, but of it needing to be granted anew.

This isn't to say that Major Archbishop Lubomyr isn't worthy of such a title. I've heard nothing but good things about him. But such titles aren't assumed unilaterally. They are granted by others.

Grace and peace,
Rd John

Reader John,

This is true, which leads to the question as to why Rome tolerates the present liturgical usage in the UGCC. Is it a tacit recognition, or are they simply afraid to get the Ukes all riled up?

Dn. Robert