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

I'm having problems with the dashboard, hence the ragged look of the post.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/11/rome-upholds-excommunication-of.html

Is it against canon law for an eastern rite church's patriarch to consecrate a bishop without permission from rome? I know His Beatitude Patriarch Josyf Slipyj did it more than once.. has the law changed?

The comparison of the episcopal consecration of Patriarch Lubomyr with that of the four excommunicated episcopi vagantes does not hold water. Patriarch Joseph was responsible for the underground Church and ensuring that the episcopate would not be lost again, as happened when the USSR arrested all the bishops in 1945 and Poland deported the two bishops in 1946 - to the USSR! - and the Soviet forces murdered Blessed Theodore of Mukachiv and then arrested Bishop Alexander (Khira).

Father Lubomyr had been secretly elected by the Synod and approved by Patriarch Joseph; the four vagantes were not elected by the Synod nor were they approved by Patriarch Lubomyr.

As events transpired, Bishop Lubomyr continued to act purely as an Archimandrite until Pope John Paul II eventually accepted him as a Bishop, in response to the clear petition of the Church in Ukraine.

Fr. Serge

Father bless,

I certainly was not trying to draw a comparison between those scoundrels and the Holy Patriarch Husar (in character or their elevation to the bishopric) . I am honestly unaware of that particular church law. Terribly sorry if I offended, I have nothing but admiration for Patriarch Joseph

David

You didn't offend me in the least; I was responding to a comment from the quoted blog.

The Blessing of the Lord!

Fr. Serge

Dear Fr. Serge:

I made it clear in my post that Cardinal Husar was appointed bishop by the head of the UGCC, lacking only the papal blessing, while the Pidhirtsi Fathers lacked both. And I would think that anyone following the story would know by now that in the UGCC, appointment by the head of the UGCC is actually the more important element for the legitimacy of a UGCC bishop.

As for the lack of a papal blessing, I would like to point out that while no one contests the right of the UGCC to appoint its own bishops, and while no one contests the right that Cardinal Slipyj had to secretly appoint and consecrate bishops for the persecuted church in the Ukraine, I believe that there was still a lot of controversy on whether Cardinal Slipyj could do so in Rome itself annd its environs (the consecration of then-Archimandrite Husar took place in Castelgandolfo). Given that many Catholic traditionalists (who make up the main audience of the blog) have raised this topic in conjunction with these consecrations, I felt that it was only fair that I at least acknowledge the issue.

That having been said, I recognize that some people may think that I am somehow downgrading the Cardinal to the level of the excommunicated ones, and I will incorporate some clarificatory notes to the original blog post.

Like the unrelated Society of St Josaphat they have good intentions but are wrong.

Dear Asianpilgrim,

The point is that Patriarch Joseph the Hieroconfessor was exercising his rights as Patriarch when he consecrated bishops.

When he accepted the title "Patriarch" and was so loudly proclaimed by so many members of his flock (and by many others outside it), he simply activated his rights as Patriarch.

Rome did not, of course, accept this title (although the Vatican website today does admit that "his Church gave him the title of 'Patriarch'"). It did not accept it because of the potential ecumenical fallout. But Rome would not turn down the old Confessor itself - instead, it sent two UGCC clerics who obediently discharged the command given to them.

But in the case of the Pidhirtsi people - the entire foundation for their activity and "raison d'etre" is to put "Orthodox in communion with Rome" and Orthodox Christians firmly under Rome's jurisdictional foot, together with the traditions of a bygone era of Latinization.

What excuse do they have for not obeying Rome then?

Alex

Yes, it is ironic that they reject the attempts at de-latinization because they regard the Orthodox as "schismatic," yet they fail to realize that their own efforts are indeed schismatic.

Prayers that their work will do little to harm the unity of the Church, and that reconciliation will come soon!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

P.S. it seems that the latinizations were originally a defense mechanism to keep RCs from rejecting us as non-catholic, and yet they have served to nullify our role as a bridge between East and West (that is, two-way traffic--not an evacuation route!) and turn us into an island instead.

After reading the facts it seems to me that Rome hasn't upheld the excommunications but rather declined jurisdiction on the basis of it being an internal matter for the UGCC, which is to say that it accepts the judgement of Patriarch Lubomyr and the Holy Synod as being final on the matter.

I'm not denying that at all. Of course, in a blog like Rorate Caeli, I couldn't exactly call Joseph Slipyj as "Patriarch", eh?

It did not matter what his title was. As the head of his church he had certain powers and he used them. Also there was an emegency in progress (the USSR) and H.B. met the challenge head on.

Dear Asianpilgrim,

If Rorate Caeli wouldn't acknowledge the title of "Patriarch" to the man who spent 18 years in Siberia under the communist system as a witness to the Christian faith and to union with Rome - then I have quite another Latin term for them!

And since when do Catholic traditionalists follow the contemporary RC Church's rules to the letter?

Bl. Andrew Sheptytsky, Metropolitan of Galicia, once spoke to Pope Saint Pius X about the "rights and privileges" of his Church.

To this the Pope replied, "Then make use of them!"

Alex

Easy for you to be judgmental from the outside.

I've tried to be as fair and as friendly to the Eastern Churches as I could, keeping in mind that I don't own that blog and that I have to abide by some rules and conventions.

And, by the way, most "conservative" Roman Catholics and even some members of the UGCC and the other Eastern Churches would also deny to Cardinal Slipyj the title of Patriarch, so to be consistent, you will have to condemn all of them too.

It is quite true that a "Major Archbishop" (sounds like the Salvation Army) has the same practical authority as a Patriarch.

It is also true that Pope Benedict XVI, who is no one's fool, knows perfectly well that the title "Patriarch" is in common use for the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Chief Hierarch, and has made no attempt to interfere with this usage. On the contrary, the Holy Father approved the restoration of the historic title of Kyiv-Halych and the move of His Beatitude to Kyiv, the national capital, in spite of strong pressure to prevent this.

Fr. Serge