www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Rome upholds the excommunication of the Pidhirtsi Fathers

Dear Fr. Serge:

If there is anything that the past forty years have demonstrated, it is that just because Rome does not interfere with something, does not mean that Rome approves of it. Rome may not be interfering with the use of the Patriarchal title, but neither has Rome employed the title, or acknowledged it either by official approval or by even indirectly referring to it. And the move to Kyiv (which was already approved in principle by Pope John Paul II) was never understood as approval of the Patriarchal title; or else, Rome would be using it by now.

Rome has a thousand things to deal with other than the Patriarchal title of Kyiv; sorry to state this, but it is a fact. Whether Rome's ambiguity regarding the Patriarchal status is just or not, is matter for another discussion, and has little to do with stating the facts on the ground.

The question here is not whether the UGCC deserves to be acknowledged as a Patriarchate. That is a totally different question, and on this, I personally am in the pro-Patriarchal camp as I have stated in ByzCath several times. That having been said, I am deeply offended by Orthodox Catholic's suggestion that those Catholics who are not on the patriarchal side, deserve to be called names. Last time I checked, the Patriarchal title of the UGCC is not an article of faith and does not involve Divine Revelation, and disagreements on this question, no matter its importance, need not call into question the faith or worthiness of any Catholic on either side of the debate.

The question that has thus far developed in this thread, is whether outside of the UGCC and some Eastern Catholic Churches, the Patriarchal title of the UGCC's Kyivan See is actually recognized as such, even by those who are, in principle, eager to see UGCC actually declared a Patriarchate. And from what I can see, many Roman Catholics are sympathetic to Kyiv's Patriarchal claim and will cheer the day when Rome explicitly acknowledges the Patriarchal status of the head of the UGCC; however, they are not necessarily willing to refer to the head of the UGCC as Patriarch unless Rome explicitly does so first.

Dear Asianpilgrim,

First of all, I apologise to have offended you. That was not my intention and I did use a "smiley" when I said what has, regrettably, given you offense.

At no time did I suggest that everyone has to call the Hieroconfessor Joseph Slipyj "Patriarch" or else.

You are right, there were and are those in the UGCC who refuse to give him that title. Parishes in my area were divided on that matter.

The Melkite Patriarch and others DID acknowledge the title of Patriarch for Joseph Slipyj and used it when addressing him.

My only point is that traditionalist Roman Catholics have always been quick to point out contemporary Rome's failings in liturgical and other areas (and please be advised that I am inclined to agree with them for the most part).

That is WHY I couldn't fathom why such would have a problem referring to Cardinal Slipyj as "Patriarch" especially since the traditionalist RC's I have known have tended to see in Rome's reticence in acknowledging this title formally as a "giving in" to Moscow - something that they have never liked.

I don't see anything offensive in that and I only meant to call up traditional RC's for what is a perceived inconsistency in this regard, that is all.

Given Patriarch Joseph's long witness to Catholicism in Siberia and his great suffering for union with Rome - how could ANYONE refuse to call him "Patriarch" if even only in terms of an honorific?

Yes, I would challenge anyone who would balk at honouring that great man in this way, especially members of my own UGCC.

Alex

Dear Orthodox-Catholic,

During the later life of Patriarch Yosef, it appeared that many within the Roman Catholic Church, foreign governments, media, and other institutions often used the term 'Cardinal-Patriarch' when addressing the 'Head' of the UGCC. Perhaps because this hyphenated title described in a way they could best understand the unique relationship which the 'Head' of the UGCC had to both the larger Roman Catholic Church and to Ukrainians around the world. There were many within the UGCC themselves who used this hyphenated title for the very same reason as evidence by this stamp which was issued by the Ukrainian government in 1993:

http://www.philnet.fr/res/timbres/ukraine/19930030.jpg

The division you mention regarding the Patriarchate in UGCC parishes in the 'West' in my opinion no longer existsts. All doubts regarding the need for the title were erased by the Ukrainians who began to emerge from the Catacomb UGCC in the late 1980's. The dominant 'Pro' Patriarchal sentiment of Ukraine has now completely permeated the UGCC around the world. The Ukrainian government, media, and even the Orthodox Churches use the title 'Patriarch' when refering to the current head of the UGCC.

I have noticed that the Roman Catholic Church in neighboring countries such as Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary seem to continue to use the term 'Cardinal' when addressing the 'Head' of the UGCC - perhaps because Roman Catholic tradition requires them to do so, or perhaps the whole notion of a unique Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate is new to them. The media and non church organizations in these countires are increasingly using the term 'Patriarch' when addressing the head of the UGCC and seem to have no problem extending that honor to the late Patriarch Joseph Slypij.

I.F.

Of course the Holy See must hold many matters in a delicate balance. At the same time, the concept of a "tolerated custom" is not meaningless. And the attitude of the Holy See on the matter of the Kyiv-Halych Patriarchate has visibly developed. I remember quite well the Holy Year in the mid-seventies when there was a large Pontifical Divine Liturgy in Saint Peter's Basilica and Pope Paul VI would not so much as look out his window and bless the assembled multitude, because he was apprehensive that this would be taken as an acceptance of the Patriarchal title (which was used during the Divine Liturgy). I remember the cheirotonia of the late Kyr Myroslav-Ivan (Liubachivsky), when the students of the Ukrainian Minor Seminary in Rome were forbidden even to wear small buttons bearing Patriarch Joseph's picture and the words "Patriarch Joseph" on them.

I remember officials of the Holy See becoming seriously angry because when Patriarch Joseph did major renovations on the building of the Kyiv-Halych Metropolia on Madonna dei Monti in Rome, the memorial inscription included, not the dread word "Patriarch" but the simple letter "P".

I further remember Pope John Paul II's historic visit to Ukraine, when the Holy Father did not bat an eye at the use of the same title, both in liturgical texts and in popular acclamations.

I also, incidentally, remember that when Patriarch Joseph fell asleep in the Lord, Tomas Cardinal O'Fiach, Primate of All Ireland, wrote a lovely letter to Bishop Isidore of Toronto, offering his condolences "on the death of your great Patriarch Joseph".

There has indeed been progress.

Fr. Serge

Dear Ivan Franko,

Yes, absolutely.

I was only addressing our friend asianpilgrim's relation of how traditional RC's feel about the title.

But how a number of our own treated the holy Patriarch-Hieroconfessor when he was alive was truly a scandal. It is good that they rush to honour him now that he has gone to his reward. That doesn't erase the memory and impact of those goings-on.

I have beside me a letter from the Holy Hieroconfessor Joseph the Patriarch thanking me for a paper I wrote about him years ago with his signature.

When he was arrested, my grandfather was charged with the responsibility to look after his belongings "until I return from Siberia."

May we be protected by his holy prayers in heaven!

Alex

There are some things I find interesting about these group of priests: their opposition to false ecumenism, their antipathy toward Pagan religions.

From what I see, they're not affiliated with the Society of St. Josephat. I don't regard the Society of St. Josaphat as truly traditionalist as it defends Latinization and Westernization, and these are the Eastern versions of Modernism.

However, I don't know if the positions of these group are similar to those of the SSJ and why they're separated.

If they requested consecration from a vagante sect (a Duarte-Costaite or Aftimiate group) then all what is good in them has lost its value and they cannot be regarded as serious.

I do know that some priests of the Suzdalite movement in Russia have associated with the SSPX secretely.

I have also noticed that these priests have contact with charismatic organizations, and they appear to support the Charismatic Renewal. They, however, condemn Foccolare.

They accuse the UGCC of accepting New Age practices and bad influences from the West (Modernism: the teachings of Theilard de Chardin and Immanuel Kant). They also believe that the Orthodox have a reason to reject union with Rome, because of the Pope's inability to supress Modernism in spite of the strong power that Popes are supposed to have in the Roman Church. They also deplore the fact that Catholics are now allowed to take communion in Orthodox churches, believing that this is an offense against their grandparents who risked their lives for the Papacy.

I apologize for the previous post but I have serious problems with my keyboard, the letter S is damaged ad I have to paste it from other words.