www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pope to Patriarch: We need unity faster

Dear Friends,

Our Patriarch Lubomyr of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church insists that we are truly in Eucharistic Communion with Rome (and that's it).

In every which way, then, he believes we should "be who we are," or an Eastern Church that affirms its Orthodoxy in faith and celebrates its Catholicity of communion where the UGCC Synod represents the "whole in the part."

In fact, the way in which the UGCC conducts itself in Ukraine today has won the admiration of Orthodox Christians, whether they are deemed to belong to canonical jurisdictions or not (such as the UAOC) and there are individuals and even entire parishes of these jurisdictions that come into communion with Patriarch Lubomyr.

That is to his great credit and demonstrated leadership.

Also, the fact that the UGCC can boast such theological/liturgical minds like Fr. Archimandrite Sergius Keleher (as he is rightly extolled on the UGCC website!), also shows that we are slowly developing a transcultural ecclesial reach.

If Fr. Keleher's legacy in the UGCC is any indication, we need more Byzantine Irish and in a hurry!

Alex

Dear Alex,

Thank you! It's always nice to be appreciated.

Fr Serge

Slava Isusu Christu!

I just did a paper for my canon law class on communio/koinonia ecclesiology and the 1983 Latin Code and the 1990 Oriental Code that relates to this issue. It will be a theological challenge to articulate a true ecclesiology of communio that uses the correct theological terminology and meaning for each autonomous Church in union with the Pope of Rome and one that the Eastern Orthodox can relate to. I hope the dialogue continues and we all grow from mutual understanding.

In Christ,


Robert

That should be of considerable interest. I look forward to reading it.

Fr. Serge

Slava Isusu Christu!

Father, bless.

Dear Father Serge:

When Father Garrity, my canon law professor, is finished grading it, I can scan it and send it to you.

Many years.

Father, bless.

In Christ,


Robert Horwath

The Blessing of the Lord!

And my great thanks to you.

Fr. Serge

As an aside, Robert, you and I attend the same University. I'm an undergrad (freshman) and I had no idea there were any Eastern Catholics. I know of one other, a Melkite. I'm about to begin the process to become a Maronite, insha'allah. We should set up a group on campus for sharing Eastern Catholicism with others. I tried to send you a pm, but your box was full.

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew

Ave Maria would certainly benefit from a vocal Eastern presence.

I found Cardinal Kasper's comments about the CCEO rather interesting: "Already the apostolic constitution enforcing the Eastern Code of Canon Law stated that its regulations were valid only in the intermediate term, that is, until full reconciliation with the Eastern Churches not in full communion. Thus, the model of the exercise of primacy we have in the Eastern Catholic Churches is not necessarily the model for the future reconciliation with the Orthodox Churches."

Ravenna Was "Breakthrough" in Orthodox-Catholic Ties [zenit.org]

Slava Isusu Christu!

Dear Andrew:

I received your message and responded through the AMU email server. I look forward to working with you to bring more of the East to our school.

Apotheoun: Cardinal Kaspar is right. The CCEO can only be a temporary or provisional rule for the Eastern and Oriental Churches. An Ecumenical Council of union with the Byzantine Orthodox would be the ideal canonical atmosphere for the codification of a truly Eastern Code--an addition to the Pedalion or Rudder. The Old Calendarists and some Jurisdictions may not accept this truly Eighth Ecumenical Council, but if the Churches do not move toward this goal--the juridical irregularities of our Churches cannot be healed and we all remain in a sense uncanonical because of the mutual violation of the canons both conciliar, synodical, and of the Fathers.

I am currently reading the Pedalion or Rudder with commentary. The venom of hatred, by the commentator, against the Latins and Eastern Catholics is strong. However, I find even within the commentary itself latinization, such as the use of terms like "original sin" a putative vision of soteriology, and citations from Augustine and proof-texts from Latin Fathers supporting an Anti-Latin perspective; my sense of historical consciousness, the realization of guilt on all sides of the ecclesial fence, is offended by the strong polemical tone. Does anyone else get this from the commentary by the 'Apostle'. The interpretation on Baptism is harsh, recognizing the use of economia only in a state of oppression by a majority heretical or schismatic group--meaning chrismation, to receive converts, is only allowed when Orthodox are receiving great numbers of former heretics or schismatics or the Baptism of previously baptized heretics or schismatics would cause war or bloodshed against Orthodox Christians. I am going over this again to get the right reading of the commentator. The commentary showed that chrismation is allowed to receive heretics and schismatics, but the Author asserted in our day it is not allowed and strictness is the only course of action. Also, the canons themselves seemed very strict on penances. I don't know if most Eastern Christians today can follow the strict rule--we would all be in the back of the Church in sackcloth and ashes. The Pedalion's commentary in my opinion is inadequate as a Rudder in the sense of moving the Ship of the Church in right direction in the context of today's Eastern Churches. We need a new commentary on it and if there is I hope it takes into consideration historical scholarship, ecumenism, and communion ecclesiology.

However, apart from reading the Pedalion I am refreshing my spirit with a reading from Father Sergii Bulgakov's book "Bride of the Lamb" which is renewing my consciousness of ecclesiology and bringing me into an awareness of his articulation of sophiology--which is revolutionizing my perspective on Eastern theology. I realize the theological issues with sophiology, but it's connection with deification seems necessary and the articulation of Divine Wisdom is key to understand Eastern theology. I am also reading in connection with Father Sergii's text an essay called DIVINE WISDOM AND THE TRINITY: A 20TH CENTURY CONTROVERSY IN ORTHODOX THEOLOGY by Mikhail Sergeev.

A Ecumenical Council of Union ideally, would critique the theological developments in the Latin Church on the role of Pope and the National Church model of the East as insufficient to encourage and sustain unity. The Patriarchs should agree the 'primes inter pares' model does not work and secular governments choosing bishops does not meet the criterion of the Gospel effectively to incarnate the Lord's Kingdom, 'not of this world'. This is really an issue on "who is first in the Kingdom" and not one of deification in Christ, which is the goal of any Patriarch or Metropolitan for his rational sheep. A collaborative vision of Patriarchal leadership or sobornost is necessary here. Patriarchs could even set aside in law their narrative assertions of pride of place in the system of patriarchs and assert the equality of all hierarchs aside from title or previous ecclesiastical position in the Patriarchal family. So a claim of "first" would not be necessary. There are other ways to come to consensus without a tie breaker--it is more challenging ecclesially, but there is hope--the Spirit is the true Mediator in conciliar decision-making.

We have to pray for continued dialogue and unity.

In Christ God,


Robert