www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Patriarch Lubomyr denounces Uniatism; urges one Orthodox-Catholic Church in Ukraine

Right now I don�t think there are any agreements in place between any Roman or Oriental Orthodox churches that allow for intercommunion or concelebration at the patriarchal level or under normal circumstances. I think what Bergschlawiner described is what has happened in some places, i.e. a pastoral provision to care for members of one church or the other who may not have access to the sacraments of their own church.

Andrew

Herb,

Thank you for your comments! I do appreciate the optimistic point of view.

If enough have faith and truly believe that an intercommunion can occur, then it will! True faith as small as a mustard seed can make it happen.

Regarding the previous situation with the Melkites, the timing may have been off. Could it be time to try it again? If you ask, the worst that can happen is someone says No, but then again, that someone may say Yes!

For those who have share elegant and valid points regarding the non possibility of an inter-dimensional communion of x, y and z, I appreciate your feedback. However, I for one, wish with my whole heart and being to sever these manmade obstacles to a re-united Church.

Prayers for the United Orthodox-Catholic Church of Ukraine (RP). :-)

In Christ,

Michael

Andrew mentioned that there is presently no agreement between the Latin Patriarchate and Oriental Orthodox. That is also my impression STRICTLY speaking.

But my point was not that the Latins ARE in de fact communion with the Orientals and hence are Indirectly in communion with the Orthodox. I am merely speculating on the possibility of communion between the UGCC and an/the Orthodox Church of Ukraine - a communion that does not necessitate that the Latins and the Moscow and/or Constantinople first make peace and come together in a new Uniya.

However, Andrew does raise for me a VERY interesting possibility.

True, as yet, no autonomous Catholic Church has intercommunion with any Oriental Orthodox Church, but I think there is some sort of accord where by there is some level of intercommunion between the Latins and the Great Assyrian Church of the East.

It may not be ordinary concelebration yet, but it's certain a significant move in that direction, seems to me.

And I've heard in some Catholic parishes (Byzantine, not Latin) that the Assyrians are regular parishioners and regular communions (pace that they do not have their own parish, but still...)

If any of the Orthodox were to have the same deal with the Assyrians ....

or

If the Coptic Church were to have the same deal with the Assyrians, well....! Maybe that Priestly Prayer "that they may all be one" might actually come true!

Herb
praying and yearning that "all be one"

Dear Herb,

Though I would agree with your optimism, I must point out that officially there is no inter-communion between Roman or Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches. It may exist on a special need basis, again within certain strictly pastoral guidelines, but for an Orthodox bishop to make that pronouncement would definitely be an issue that I am sure that he would be called on by his brother bishops. I do not want posters to get the wrong impression that there is some sort of official inter-communion. The same can be said regarding the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian (Oriental) Orthodox.

I agree that we should pray that one day all may be one, but at the moment it is not a reality, but who knows when, God will.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

dear Father Anthony:

Bless!

thank you for your post and the clarifications therein.

I suspect you needn't worry that any of us are labouring under any false impression that there presently exists any official or normative intercommunion between Catholic and Orthodox Churches. We all know what the hard reality is.

Hence the line of speculation in this thread - and in Patriarch Lubomyr's statements...

kissing your right hand,

Herb

Dear Herb,

I just wanted to make the clarification, so there is no guessing on anyones part. Otherwise I think someone will take it as de juris policy, and it is not.

We all pray in the Divine Services for the "union of all", and God-willing it will become a reality. But for the moment, different approaches such as the partiarch's must be presented, and see if the time is right. I know the late Metropolitan Andrew sought it during his tenure, but the tragic events of the time put an end to that. Maybe sometime soon. We just have to keep praying and working on putting aside centuries of hatred and mis-trust. That is were the Hand of God will really be needed.

My prayers are for you and those that seek unity in the brotherhood of God in an undivided Universal Church. It must start with one group at a time, and eventually will become a formula that can be applied in other areas. We can only pray to see it happen in our lifetime.

God Bless you,

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

dear Father:

Bless!

Yes, Father, I agree completely. You put it wonderfully and succinctly.

I am encouraged and consoled by your commitment to this matter.

kissing your right hand,

Herb

Metropolitan Andrew, of most blessed memory, took the approach that "Church unity will take one or two centuries of work, so we had better get busy" - not the worst approach.

Incognitus

Concerning Lubomyr's statement, it would be helpful if we had the actual text of his remarks. Based on the partial quotes we have from Interfax, I think that we can only really speculate about what he meant.

Just my 2 cents.
-Peter.

Husar seems to make some very interesting points. Good for him!

Hopefully nobody will mind my posting on an old thread (alternately I could have quoted the above into a new thread) ... but anyhow, I'm wondering if it is appropriate to use the term "neo-uniatism" in such a broad way?

Dear Petrus,

It is entirely inappropriate to use any form of "Uniatism" when one is describing EC Churches or faithful.

It is akin to Catholics referring to the Orthodox as "Orthodox" in parentheses (as if to call into question that they are orthodox in faith at all for having gone into "willful schism" from Rome).

However, Uniatism can and does refer to a mindset characterized by a certain servility of one Particular Church or group of people towards another. As a nuance, it can suggest that the group in question came into union with (or under the authority of) another Church by force or else that it has been a kind of willing victim to a ritual takeover by that other Church.

I'm taking pains not to simply say "Rome" or the Roman Catholic Church because Uniatism can and has existed in other Churches.

For example, the Orthodox Churches of Ukraine and Georgia (there are others) who were under either the ecclesial control of the Moscow Patriarchate or else via political control, have complained of historic efforts by the MP to subjugate them to the foreign spiritual culture of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Georgian Orthodox patriarch, Saint Anton, who was recently glorified by the GOC, was forced to become a Metropolitan by the ROC which tried to make the GOC into a simple ROC metropolia. Russification, Georgian Orthodox say, occurred in church architecture and other traditions of their Church and national culture. In every which way, until Georgia re-established its patriarchate, the GOC was in a "uniate" relationship with the ROC.

It is a subject that is not widely written about in mainstream Orthodoxy simply because it is embarrassing and because it takes away from the propagation of the sense of "victimhood" of Slavic Orthodoxy and Slavic EC's at the hands of their RC neighbours.

Alex

I know its an old post, but I like to respond to Zenovia. The "Russians" did not engineer the murder of eight million Ukrainians in 1933. Stalin's Soviet Union did. I know I'm veering off-topic, but I'd like to set the record straight.
What IS disturbing, in my opinion, is that so many Russians today have a high opinion of Stalin.