www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Schism & Authority

This thread

link

I think was wandering off the topic, so I decided to move the conversation in to a new thread. I'm not sure what the point behind the comments is in regards to Ukraine, but my own belief is the imposition of authority cannot resolve schism and division, if that is what is being put forward.

I think he has helped the situation.

I must be honest, I don't know the whole picture. I have bits and pieces, and it already made my eye roll up in exasperation on the politics.

On the UGCC side, the Ukrainian Catholics of course want their head to be universally recognized as a Patriarch. Of course Rome doesn't want to because they don't want to offend the Russian Orthodox which would virtually erase any progress in any unification talks. Of course I understand there are issues on the Ukrainian Church not having a Patriarch in the past. But why can't we have one right now? No Ukrainian Catholic ever refers to H.B. Lubomyr as Major Archbishop. I'm pretty sure his successor will be called Patriarch as well.

And there's the issue of a pro-Orthodox government.

As for the Orthodox, my understanding is the schismatic groups are there, or at least one of them, because they do not with to submit to a Patriarch in Moscow. Makes sense that the Patriarch of the Ukrainian Church should be in Ukraine. While Church and State are separate, Church and politics do tend to mix up a lot.

I don't think they much care, anymore. They recognize the Archbishop of Kyiv-Halich as Patriarch, the commemorate him as such in the Liturgy, they address him as such in correspondence and in everyday communication. The Ukrainian Greek Catholics have very low expectations of Rome, not the least because of Rome's tepid and slow response to the re-emergence of the UGCC after the fall of the Soviet Union. Many Ukrainian Greek Catholics feel that Rome simply sees them as an unfortunate complication in Rome's ongoing dialogue with the Moscow Patriarchate.


I don't think the Ukrainians would mind if Yanukovich was pro-Orthodox (though in such a ex-communist thug and criminal any profession of religious faith ought to be taken with a large grain of salt) if he was not so transparently pro-Moscow in his sympathies. Yanukovich's religious policy is plainly part of his overall strategy of bringing Ukraine back into the Russian orbit. It's unfortunate that the Moscow Patriarchate, in its desire to reestablish its authority over all Orthodox in Ukraine cannot put distance between itself and the secular political manipulations of Yanukovich and his puppet master, Vladimir Putin.


The Ukrainians might have been more willing to be under the omophorion of Moscow if only the Church of Moscow throughout its history not been such a tool of the Russian (and Soviet) government, and not been such a willing collaborator in the dismantling of Ukrainian nationhood.

In what way?

My belief is none of this can be sorted out through the imposition of authority from above, no matter which direction it comes from.

I would agree with Andrew; in the case of Ukraine all of the bullying, attempted governmental interference and angriest declarations from Moscow including the Patriarch being declared "without grace" have not suppressed the will and desire of the UOC-KP to exist, organize and grow; the latest CIA statistics (assumably a relatively neutral source) show the UOC-KP to be almost twice as large currently, with 50.4% of the population identyfying themselves as such to 26.1% as UOC-MP.

You just outlined my point.
Truth be told, whether we want to or not, politcs and religion mixes a lot. Whether its morality or control of the people, the game of politics has to be played.

As Cicero said, to the peasant, all religions are equally true; to the philosopher, equally false; and to the politician, equally useful.

Hahahah! I agree. But its the world we live in, sadly our Church leaders have to play this game as well lest nothing gets accomplished. In the Philippines where I come from, the Church is mostly painted as an evil, controlling entity by those who oppose her views. Sometimes I wonder how the country can claim to be 80% Roman Catholic and have so many enemies of the Church. But the parishes are packed every Sunday nonetheless. Perhaps the vocal minority just outshines the silent majority in the realm of politics.

Sometimes I wonder how the country can claim to be 80% Roman Catholic and have so many enemies of the Church.

Ask Mexico. But the Church largely brought this upon itself by being too closely associated with an oppressive ruling class. And anticlericalism has many manifestations. Most Spaniards, for instance, will profess great love for the Church, but hate priests with a passion--an attitude shared by my Sicilian great-great-grandfather. He was a tenant farmer on a church-owned property, and loathed priests because they squeezed the tenants (the husbands metaphorically, their wives literally) and were blatantly hypocritical (e.g., dispensing themselves from fasting on Friday, while damning to eternal hellfire a poor farmer caught eating a scrawny chicken leg). The Church has to be seen as independent of all faction, and standing for its own beliefs, if it is to be the moral and spiritual beacon it was intended to be.

Another thing I can't figured out is how the Philippines ended up with a Freemason as a National Hero, and wrote a book that is very critical of the Spanish monarchy who at the time ruled the islands, and the Church. In fact, the arch-villain of the book is a friar. Today, protesters against the Church for her anti-contraceptive stance (they are blocking a bill that will grant government funding for contraception) use the fictional priest's name as a rallying cry. They would attend Masses wearing black shirts with the word "Damaso" in reference to Fr. Damaso.

But you are right, it could be the same case in Mexico and other former Spanish colonies. Ironically, it was the Archbishop of Manila who was one of the prominent figures that led to revolt and freedom from the dictator Marcos in 1986. Had the Archbishop not put his hand on politics, we wouldn't have nuns with rosaries stopping tanks in the middle of the road, and we would still be under the same tyranic leader.

I didn't mean by imposing authority from above, more like mediating between different parties.

I'm not so sure. To my mind, the desire to please the UGCC and the desire to please the ROC kind of balance each other out.

Actually, no. Rome was very slow to recognize the resurgence of the UGCC back in 1989, and seemed almost annoyed that Moscow had not successfully resolved the "uniate question". And Rome has steadfastly resisted fulfillment of the promise made by Pope John Paul II to Patriarch Joseph the Confessor. All in all, not an edifying performance for the Church that claims pastoral oversight of the rest of us.

Stuart, you still have to appreciate how Rome is doing everything to create unity. Even become a people pleaser. I understand the need to placate the Russians, but at the same time they should be taking care of those who are already Catholics. The UGCC is the largest of the Eastern Catholics. There should be recognition and appreciation for this.

Anyway, thats just my point of view. Admittedly I am biased as I belong to the UGCC.