www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Some Reflections on Being a Byzantine Catholic

Actually the Kyivan Church Study Group began during the reign of Patriarch Myroslav Ivan, who blessed the KCSS along with Patriarch Bartolomeos. By the time Patriarch Lubomyr was elected the KCSS was already largely inactive. In fact the last formal meeting of the KCSS was during the time when Patriarch Myroslav Ivan was still alive and administering the Church. I for one would love to see the KCSS reinvigorated.

There are other positive signs, such as the joint catechetical initiatives of the UGCC in the USA and the UOC-USA with Generations of Faith and other activities and the regular annual meeting of the UGCC and UOC bishops of North America, which does not happen to my knowledge in any other parallel Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.

I would clarify the above statement with the definite intention of not breaking Eucharistic communion with Rome in returning to "whence they came" (which Fr. Borys would agree with). My points and observations are still quite pertinent - at least in our lifetime with the new Patriarchal Sobor nearing completion, we are not "going away", but on the contrary building towards a stronger and more united Kyivan Church in communion with Rome. And this is being done with generally good relations with the non-Muscovite Ukrainian Orthodox Churches.

Were our Church heading towards a voluntary self-elimination, I do not think the movement of the hierarchy to Kyiv, the building of several new edifices for the episcopacy there and in other cities, along with the expansion of new exarchates of the UGCC would be occurring. In the case of the Church of Kyiv, there is a mutual growing and maturing process that is occurring not only within our Church out of the catacombs, but in the Orthodox churches in Ukraine themselves (not without growing pains as can be seen from the UOC-KP/MP/UAOC interactions).

I know that. Kyr Lyubomir was a participant, and an important one.

"My points and observations are still quite pertinent - at least in our lifetime with the new Patriarchal Sobor nearing completion, we are not "going away", but on the contrary building towards a stronger and more united Kyivan Church in communion with Rome. And this is being done with generally good relations with the non-Muscovite Ukrainian Orthodox Churches. "

It really doesn't matter from which direction ecclesial unity comes. Ukraine is rather anomalous due to the manner in which the Metropolia was transferred to Moscow and then elevated to Patriarchal status, in conjunction with the socio-political relationship of Muscovy with Ukraine. In other words, In the eyes of most Ukrainians, the Greek Catholic Church is more legitimate than the Moscow Patriarchate, which may mean, in the end, folding the other Orthodox Churches into the Greek Catholic Church. But elsewhere, the opposite situation is likely to pertain.

Just an aside here on one of the dominant themes of the thread: regardless of what happens with our hierarchies (I personally hope that someday in my lifetime there will be only one Antiochean church of the Eastern Chalcedonian tradition), our main focus should be elsewhere.

I personally think the Church's focus should be on our continuous prayer to the Trinity and our celebration of the events of Salvation history, of the lives of the saints, on being the Bride of Christ. This is shown in our prayer lives, our liturgical lives, our sacramental lives, and our relations to others (all of which is not really separate, but all of which flow from each other). In this sense, any particular local church will never be "obselete" or "self-eliminated". Wherever it goes jurisdictionally, it will still be focused on what's important.

One might also say that the notion of apostolic Churches outside of communion with the Apostolic See of St. Peter in Rome is also something of an historical and ecclesial anomaly, at least from a patristic perspective.

And a lesser can only be "absorbed" by a greater. Absorption assumes an inherent inequality and is ergo not the proper way of expressing or achieving union. It offends the sense of equality and mutuality that should define whatever form union takes.

It is important to remember that Rome acts as if the pope were an Archpatriarch; having a relationship to the other patriarchs like that of a metropolitan to his suffragans.

There is some early support for this role, within the Assyrian Church's early writings.

I do not think that this is the model (metropolitan in relationship to suffragans) that is detailed in Lumen Gentium nor do I think that we have seen recent pope's function this way (the papal appointment and approval of bishops notwithstanding).

"One might also say that the notion of apostolic Churches outside of communion with the Apostolic See of St. Peter in Rome is also something of an historical and ecclesial anomaly, at least from a patristic perspective."

Not at all. There were very long periods when one Church or another was not in communion with Rome, for a variety of reasons (most having nothing at all to do with doctrine). These breeches were considered regrettable and to be healed as quickly as possible, but by no means were the Churches out of communion with Rome not considered as possessing the fullness of the Apostolic Church. That's an anachronistic reading of later Roman ecclesiology. In fact, as late as the Council of Florence, it was still considered possible for the Church of Rome to negotiate with the Church of Constantinople (as well as other Churches, including the Church of Armenia) as true Churches. It's only after Trent that Latin ecclesiology comes to see the Church of Rome as the only "true" Church.

I never argued otherwise. I hope you are not trying to put words to the contrary in my mouth...

I'm sorry. To me, it kind of sounded like you were implying one could only be Apostolic by being in communion with Rome. If I misconstrued your meaning, I apologize.

No worries! My apologies if I was unclear. My intention is not to deny in any fashion the apostolic nature of the Orthodox Churches not in communion with Rome, but rather to assert our OWN true apostolic nature as Eastern Catholic Churches. My goal is to make sure that we never lose sight of that, whatever the patronizing views of the Latins or others may be. We have to approach union NOT as though it is something that happens to us, but rather as equals with our Orthodox and Latin brethren.

God bless!

The appointment, removal, and approval of bishops in all but patriarchal churches is indicative of suffragan status; that he is the focal point of visible communion (as any patriarch is to his synod, and a metropolitan is to his suffragans) is more proof, not less.

Add the canons of universal immediate and ordinary jurisdiction even over the other catholic patriarchs, in exact mirror of patriarchs over their synod, and metropolitans over their suffragans...

Canon law makes it fairly clear that the Pope is to all bishops, even patriarchs, as a patriarch is to his bishops, or a metropolitan to his suffragans, for the same rights and privleges are used. But it is also fairly evident that the last several popes have ruled with a gentle, perhaps at times too gentle, touch.