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

The Patriarchates of Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria were all created and not immediately recognized by the EP or other Patriarchates. Sometimes it takes decades, sometimes longer for outside recogniztion of what is an internal reality amongst the Particular Church.

That's just it - as you have demonstrated many Catholics don't seem to really understand the nature of a particular Church, especially those coming from Latin backgrounds. The view held by the Pope does matter to us, but we are a particular Church, else we would be relying on Rome for every decision and we would be Latin, not the particular Greek Catholic Church of Kyiv. The view held by the EP does matter to us, as well, for that matter.

While we are in communion with Rome, we are fully a particular Church sui iuris . Recognition of an ecclesial reality always begins at the level of the local church. Lex orandi, lex credendi - and we have the liturgical reality of the commemoration of His Beatitude as Patriarch.

The cultus of saints is something like this as well - certainly many saints are recognized but were never canonized officially.

Many years to His Beatitude +Lubomyr, Patriarch of Kyiv, Halych and all Rus' and the diaspora for Ukrainian Greek Catholics.

During several pontifical visits, both to Ukraine and for Divine Liturgies in Rome the deacons have commemorated His Beatitude as Patriarch directly in the presence of the Holy Father. As Deacon Robert has correctly pointed out, not even a word about that particular liturgical usage.

Two points:

The "Patriarchate of Moscow" was never situated in Kyiv - Moscow acquired that title after the Metropolitan had doubled, so that there was a Metropolitan of the Northern section in Moscow and of the Southern section in Kyiv.

Patriarchates usually come into being by the way of custom. We may note that the Greek-Catholic Patriarch Maximos V of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and All the East normally addressed the Chief Hierarch of the Ukranian Greek-Catholic Church precisely as "Patriarch" and that title appeared frequently in Le Lien. Rome attempted to stop Patriarch Maximos from continuing this usage and Patriarch Maximos courteously declined, continuing to address and refer to the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Patriarch as precisely that.

More recently, there is another interesting example. One of the last acts of Pope John Paul II was the raising of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church to a "Major Archiepscopate". Immediately, the Chief Hierarch of this Church assumed the title of Catholicos. When Rome, in the person of Cardinal Kasper, sought to interfere, the Catholicos wrote a quite clear letter, making the point that it is up to the Synod of the Local Church to determine the title of the Chief Hierarch. The first Catholicos eventually fell asleep in the Lord, and his successor also uses the title "Catholicos".

That is how it is. One either has a consciousness of the dignity of the Local Church, and acts accordingly, or one accepts the reductio in obedientiam which is the essence of unatism.

Father Serge

Fr. Deacon,

FYI. The poster identifies himself, in the profile, as Eastern Orthodox.

Dn. Robert

I wonder whether we do. It seems we are obsessed with gaining the patriarchal title when we should be concerned with having true autonomy/autocephaly like our Synods being able to elect our own bishops anywhere. Not every autocephalous Orthodx Church is headed by a patriarch, some are headed by an archbishop (i.e major archbishop), some are headed by a metropolitan.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I once observed in a pm to a member of the UGCC who asked for my opinion that a patriarch is IMHO a "bishop's bishop." By that, I mean he is a bishop with a particular honor and a particular charism that goes with his office. A patriarch ISTM is called to support, encourage, and mentor his brothers; to give them leadership. And at the same time to have them provide the same sort of support, encoruagement, and mentoring to him.

It's lonely at the top. This principle is often batted about in the secular world and I would argue that it is the same with a bishop. Who does he go to for a place to vent his frustrations about limitations he finds in himself and in the goals he sets for his work? My own bishop told me that he stays away from priestly gatherings because he is conscious of the fact that they cannot feel free to discuss things among themselves when he is around and also that anything he might say could/would be quickly taken out of context or misquoted. So a bishop goes to his patriarch--or maybe he should.

As for the title, I told this friend to tell His Beatitude that it is not in some formal recognition that one becomes a patriarch. It is in the granting of this title and recognition by his fellow bishops and by the believers. That, it seems to me, is how the Eastern Church works. At least that is what I have been taught. The people are the guardians of the Faith. The Holy Spirit speaks through the unanimous voice of the believers, both clergy and lay.

It seems if the title has passed into the liturgical books there doesn't seem to be any more need to worry about some legal recognition from outside. And this, for me, underscores the different ways in which East and West approach this question. One begins with the central Mystery of the Faith and the "lex orandi, lex credidi." The other approaches through legal channels developed outside the liturgical mystery.

So I finished by telling my friend to simply tell His Beatitude to be what his people already tell him he is both in and out of the Divine Liturgy. Sign his name +Patriarch Lubomyr and send back any mail that comes to him addressed in any other fashion.

BOB

In July of 1988 as part of the festivities marking the 'Millennium of Christianity in Rus-Ukraine' a youth rally with over 5,000 people participating was held in front of the UGCC St-Sophia Cathedral in Rome. Patriarch Joseph was buried in the crypt of the cathedral at that time. The Holy Father John Paul II was present as were many Roman and all UGCC Greek Catholic hierarchs from around the world. When they announced that the orchestra and choir would sing a 'Prayer of our Patriarch', the Holy Father stood in respect. What I remember most was not that he stood, but that he was just about the first person to stand and the last to sit.

I.F.

PS: I recently watched the now 20 year old video from our own youth rally which took place at end of the festivities in Rome. In the 10 person reviewing line is a monk who sure looks familiar. I was thinking of sending him a copy.

Fr. Deacon, I hardly think it is an "obsession" for the largest particular Eastern Catholic church to possess the fullness of a traditional Eastern hierarchal structure.

One could bring up many churches that are smaller and DO enjoy the Patriarchate. Nor do I think recognition, even on a local level, of reality is "obsession".

My bishop +Richard regularly refers to His Beatitude as "Patriarch Lubomyr" regularly, in official correspondence to the clergy of our Eparchy, and I cannot recall any reference to him as "Major Archbishop" since his consecration over five years ago.

If it is appropriate for my bishop to recognize the hierarchal reality, it is certainly so for me. And I would not be so naive or presumptious to consider his motives "obsession".

Several interesting points have been made here, especially that the title of Patriarch is not assumed by oneself nor necessarily given from "on high" except in the sense that it originates from the Holy Spirit as recognized in the community of believers and the collegial relations of the hierarchy. This sounds much like how startsi or holy ascetics are recognized by the Christian community. This is not unlike how Padre Pio or Mother Teresa were recognized as a groundswell, if you will. The commentary in this forum about Patriarch Lubomyr has that same sense.

I'm reminded of the "dependency & underdevelopment" theory debated among economists. Like nations, a particular church or rite which is dependent on another (even though said to be sui juris may really becomes servile in a sense, instead of carrying out its sacred mission in the freedom of the Holy Spirit). Sadly, this can be seen in the universal church, where dominant rites can stifle or attempt to mute the authentic voice of so-called "sui juris" churches. The freedom exhibited by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has often been breath of fresh air (e.g. in reference to married clergy in North America and the cited example of bestowing the patriarchal title on their Metropolitan).

On the matter of how many patriarchs there are in a given rite, one theologian once told me to look at the Armenian Church. He stated that the Armenians never promoted a sense of paucity among their patriarchs. Rather they could be happy with several living at the same time. I do not know if this is true, but a quick search did reveal at least 2 Armenian Patriarchs living today, not counting those in communion with Rome. Although I may stand corrected, one thinks that these patriarchs are not competing with one another. They have their respective jurisdictions.

Armenian Patriarchs (current)
[*]Constantinople: Mesrob II Mutafian (1998-present)
[*]Jerusalem: Torkom Manoogian (1990-Present)

Respectfully,
-Pustinik
---------------------------
"Acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved." �St. Serafim of Sarov

Fr. Deacon Randy,

Please don't misunderstand, although I used your quote it was not my intention to single you out. For I do believe we all obsess to a certain degree over gaining the patriarchal title.

I also certainly think the UGCC, the largest Eastern Catholic Church should possess the fullest, most traditional hierachal structure: true autocephaly. In fact I think every Eastern Catholic Church should have true autocephaly: a functioning Synod that can elect its own bishops everywhere and govern its own people without Curial meddling.

However, I don't see why that has to be tied to the patriarchal title. The Orthodox Churches of Cyprus, Greece, Albania, Poland, Czech Lands/Slovakia, and the OCA all have true autocephaly without having a patriarch.

I also don't think there is anything wrong with the UGCC desiring the patriarchal title. If you throw the Orthodox in the UGCC is bigger than every Orthodox Church but the Russian, Romanian, and Serbian.

I wish the two issues could be seperated. As all Eastern Catholic Churches should be working for the end of the Oriental Congregation and the re-writing of the CCEO so that all Eastern Catholio Churches, regardless of size or title of chief hierarch, have true autocephaly.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I do understand the nature of particular churches since I belong to one of them. However, being in communion with Rome has meant a chain has linked particular churches to Rome. That chain can be, and has been, yanked on occasion when it suited Rome's purposes. Those particular churches are not as independent in reality as many would like. We may consider ourselves as "Orthodox in communion with Rome," but particular churches don't generally have the independence that Orthodox churches enjoy.

C. I. X.
True.
We seam too often preoccupied with securing things at the top, probably a reaction of inferiority complexes. The East is organic, grass rooted. Saint Volodymyr obviously knew this. Christianity was taken by this monarch of Rus, not a bargaining chip in securing Roman (Eastern and Western) spheres of influence.
After a millennium of playing their games in which others covet then take, it is time for Kyiv to act positively, not submissively. Let us pray the arrogance of the new Radical Orthodox will not be mistaken for self assurance.
Presentation is everything; from a secular perspective anyway. This joint Kyivan Patriarch is to embrace the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of the Orthodox Faith of Rus� and all Ukraine. Let us not deceive ourselves that is merely a sanctimonious matter, it will diminish the influence of a controlling empire while fortifying a new democracy christened with an old name and rooted in ancient Christendom. How friendly will navigating in neighboring sees be?

For my own information, what percentage of the population of Ukraine is Catholic, or Orthodox of varying churches? Are there Protestants and Muslims there as well? Does anyone have any figures on this?

Charles,

The CIA World Factbook - always a wealth of info - offers these figures:

Ukrainian Orthodox - Kyiv Patriarchate 50.4%, Ukrainian Orthodox - Moscow Patriarchate 26.1%, Ukrainian Greek Catholic 8%, Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox 7.2%, Roman Catholic 2.2%, Protestant 2.2%, Jewish 0.6%, other 3.2% (2006 est.)

Many years,

Neil

Wow! One would think from some of the posts here that it is a Greek Catholic country. So Ukraine is evidently an Orthodox country with a small minority of Catholics. That's extremely interesting. I didn't know that. Thanks for the information.