www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Gk-Catholic Patriarch: Orthodox connivance with Stalin undermi

I was stunned to read your comment as I grew up hearing that essential point raised by my father and many of his priestly peers - both Orthodox and Greek Catholic - who honestly believed that without the difficult struggles and family spitting choices that were made just what you noted would have occurred. He always believed that the imperialist minded folks within Russian Orthodoxy as well as their counterparts in the Roman Curia were seeking just such an outcome and it was only when they had to realize that the faithful would not keep quiet that their plans were somewhat thwarted.

Regards.
dd

Oh? Is your supreme pontiff going to declare "Apostolicae Curae" "absolutely null and utterly void"? Retract "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church" and recognize the legitimacy of the Anglican hierarchy and declare, without any reservations whatsoever, their eucharist and communion valid? Order his personal ordinate to to cease and desist, and not welcome the Anglo-Catholics? I take it that you consider him a "credible spokesperson", per Codex canonum ecclesiarum orientalium Title III, Chapter I c. 43-48

Read about the Ecumenical Councils. They were not nice places to be.

What is this 'right to exist' that is so often bandied about? International law knows of no such thing, much less canon law (or have I missed some canon somewhere?). Ontology sees existence as a matter of fact rather than a moral right. The term comes from politics that I won't get into, where it demands legitimization from the dispossessed. What exactly do you mean that the UGCC has a "right to exist" in particular, and "Greek Catholics" (and "Oriental Catholics"?) in general? Does the Ruthenian sui juris have a "right to exist" outside of and without reference to the UGCC, something the UGCC seems to have trouble accepting?

The fact is, according to the Codex canonum ecclesiarum orientalium, to which you have submited, you do NOT have a right to exist: "The erection, restoration, modification and suppression of patriarchal Churches is reserved to the supreme authority of the Church." (CCEO 57). Your supreme pontiff can, at his own will, without reason nor justification, simply abolish your "sui juris church" by his own personal fiat "The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff." (CCOE 45).

And before you protest 'that can't happened," it already has: the Roman Pontiff has abolished outright, as far as he is able (the Orthodox Patriarchate survives) the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Mother Church founded not by St. Peter but Christ Himself and recognized by Ecumenical Council, and the CCEO's "supreme authority of the church" has Latinized it out of existence. The Latin "Patriarchate" of Jerusalem exits as an extension of the Latin church which recognizes no "sui juris" status within it. Within the lifetime of many, including the present "supreme authority of the church," it had such a "patriarch" for all four of the pentarchy: when the (uncanonical, but that is only an issue for the Orthdoox, as the UGCC claims him) Met. Joseph Bolharynovich wrote to "the supreme authority of the church" on communion, the supreme pontiff Alexander VI Borgia rebuffed him, claiming that he had not been consecrated Metropolitan of Kiev, Halych and All Rus' by the "real" Patriarch of Constantinople, the Latin pretender Hieronymus Landus, the papal delegate to Poland, and his successor to Constantinople in the Vatican ("Apostolic" Palace, living with his uncle, Pope Paul II) Card. Giovanni Michieli (who helped elect Alexander VI supreme pontiff in exchange for being elevated to Cardinal Bishop, only to have Alexander's son Cesare poison him). Your "supreme authority of the church" in a series of bulls told Met. Joseph that he and his flock would have to be rebaptised (as was going on in Poland-Lithuania), he would have to be re-ordained, and they would have to renounce communion with the EP actually in Constantinople before he would accept his submission. Vatican II abolished such absentee patriarchates except Jerusalem: one of the fathers of Vatican I (where he, in today's terms, argued for requiring the East to follow the CIC, and against a CCEO, and argued for Pastor Aeternus), Guiseppe Valerga (known to the natives as "al-Jazzar" the Butcher, for his opposition to the Orthodox, and Easterners in general, wanting to make the RCC the church of the populace) came expressly to pick up where the Crusades left off. He did manage over four decades to double his flock to 8,000. The Melkite (now sui juris) patriarch had then, and has now, many more, nearly twice as many in the Holy Land/Jordan than the Latins. That the Melkite sui juris patriarch of Antioch bears the title of “Patriarch of Jerusalem” only underlines the utter abolishment of the patriarchate, something the pagan Latins couldn’t do, that another patriarch can just append it to his titles (Ruthenians, vis-à-vis the UGCC, should take note!). If I submitted and subscribed to “Pastor Aeternus” I’d be a Melkite according to the rules, but if I were a Palestinian, I’d be a Latin (the swelling of that flock coming from the Orthodox Patriarchate’s phyletism because the Palestinians are not Greek, but that is another issue). The over 125,000+ Melkites can more than enough supply the CCEO’s “supreme authority of the church” to “erect/restore” the patriarchate of Jerusalem. After all, that is precedent: after Rome’s Titus destroyed Jerusalem, its bishops came under the solicitude of the Patriarchate of Antioch until under Constantinople’s patronage Jerusalem could again take its place among the patriarchs. But, under the CCEO, Jerusalem has not “right to exist.”

But back to the apology tour. His Beatitude has been lobbying for “preferred victim status” of a “repressed church” or some such thing. As long as he does, no "credible spokespersons of the Orthodox Church is going to make His Beatitude’s case for him. Poland doesn’t seem to bother his Beatitude too much, so why should Russia care, let alone the Ukrainian Orthodox? Lord willing, I’ll expand on that. But in the meantime, what EXACTLY is this “legitimacy” of yours that we are supposed to recognize?

Holy smokes! Do you really have to follow their lead? False irenicism is one thing, but you're too much.

Follow the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils? Yes, I do.

If this is the fruit, then perhaps focusing on the example of Christ rather than mortal men would be advised.

I'm not sure what part of your screed was echoed in the Beatitudes I heard earlier this morning.

Gentle Jesus. John 2:15-17 Matthew 23

I'm sorry, did His Beatitude bring up the Beatitudes? I missed that.
"The non-admission of the Russian Orthodox Churches' complicity with the Soviet persecution of Greek-Catholics in Ukraine is undermining relations between the two Churches....The ability to apologize shows a lively Christian conscience, which is a precondition for the so-called healing of memories....The Russian Orthodox Church was used by Stalin's regime for the compulsory settlement of our church - he added - the fact there has been no symbolic reconciliation between us is really a serious obstacle to the development of mutual relations."...[Major Archbishop] Shevchuk has also reiterated that the discussion on the "pseudo-Synod of Lviv" is still "at a standstill."

All I see here is His Beatitude speaking, as hard as this is for many, the truth. The Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine has a numerous occasions asked for the Russian Orthodox Church to, with them, ask each other for MUTUAL forgiveness for the events of the past. Each time there is silence from Moscow....

Even Metropolitan Kallistos has wrote about this in his work, The Orthodox Church.

The reality is that both sides need to forgive each other for all the past events in the sad history of Christian division. It seems like the Greek Catholics (and all Catholics) are ready for that but are the Orthodox? I hope so and I also think so but not all are.

But us arguing back and forth and pointing out the mistakes of the past (both Orthodox and Catholic) are not going to solve anything and are antithetical to the spirit of the Great Fast and the upcoming Holy Week!

Forgiveness, charity, and peace are the hallmarks of our common Tradition during this time and so far we are all just insulting and arguing with each other.

I suggest we move on from this and that maybe this thread has reached its end?

Well now, that is the claim now, isn't it?

Uh, no. The Moscow Patriarchate has spoken a number of times on the issue of "Sergianism" (one of the issues with ROCOR) and on the compromises the hierarchy and others did to survive the Soviet regime. Pat. Alexi II spoke of this many times. That he did not utter the magic formula-I've not seen the script, is there one?-that UGCC seems to want does not equal "silence."

There is also the issue of "Moscow." The West Ukraine is in the Metropolitanate of Kiev, and was in the Exarchate of Ukraine. Whom exactly is His Beatitude addressing, and on what basis?

My own view, expressed to many ROCOR members and their sympathizers before the fall of communism, that I didn't like a lot of how the PoM's hierarchy acted, but then, off in the safety of the USA, I didn't have to bear the responsibility of millions of souls either.

Mjr. Abp. Shevchuk expresses some vague mutual forgiveness, but never gives the details of what he is confessing to. It leaves the impression that he would be apologizing for the sake of Moscow's "feelings." If His Beatitude has no idea of any grievance against the UGCC and "the supreme authority of the church," and wants one detailing the misdeeds, like His Beatitude's against "Moscow/ROC," one can easily be provided.

If His Beatitude wants details, give them. Otherwise, the PoM and the UOC have spoken plenty on the issue of the Soviet Period.

And you bring that up for some reason in particular? (This is not my only disagreement with Met. Kallistos and that work, btw).

If, God grant it, that the situation in the Ukraine is normalized and the UAOC and the UOC-KP return to the UOC, would there be a change in accusations? The UAOC (and the UOC-KP formed by uniting with the UAOC) were just as liquidated as the UGCC. In fact, the UAOC got it from the Polish Republic, the Nazis and the Soviets. Do they have to apologize for what the Soviets did?

I have found that what many UGCC and RCC are ready for is denying they did anything wrong.

How about the present? The UOC is set to receive the Pochayiv Lavra and the Kievan Caves back. If His Beatitude is successful in blocking the return of the UOC's property to the UOC, is the UOC supposed to add that to the list of "the past events in the sad history of Christian division"?

True enough, but who is the one insisting on stirring the pot? I see now that His Beatitude's predecessor, Card. Husar has now spoken to the press to oppose the return to the UOC its properties.

we could, though I suspect the topic is going to come up again:the Rada is set to take up the issue of Bill 9690. The bill on the status of "repressed church" for the the UGCC has been tabled.

You style yourself as Christ driving out the moneychangers? Be careful making such flippant assertions.

Nonetheless, I see your verses and raise you Mark 12:30:

"And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. 31 And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Regardless of the Council you claim to be immitating, there is no other commandment greater than those.


A wise person once said the Devil is in the details. I humbly recommend spending less time with him there.

Let's keep it civil, gentlemen. Debate the issues without personalizing it.

Many years,

Neil

Indeed, like stating the Pseudo-Synods of Lviv was a theologically legitimate ecclesial act.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/03/rome-and-moscow


See above.

Yoy! Control yourselves. You are not furthering the cause of reunion by such statements. Reach out to each other in the spirit of forgiveness and be Christlike.

As I have tried to state my opinion politely to no apparent avail, I will be blunt.

I am sick and tired of Orthodox, Greek Catholics and Roman Catholics alike who want to tilt the view of history to somehow support their own myopic views that only their faction may cast the proverbial first stone as they, and they alone, are without sin regarding the intertwining of faith, ecclesiology, politics, secular authority, religious authority, brutality and oppression over the course of the past four centuries and even before that.(Particularly as they may apply world-wide during the late, unlamented 20th century.)

I find it fascinating that as time goes on, it seems that those most directly impacted by such actions seem to be the ones who are slowly able to come to grips with the consequences of the same; while those on the 'outside' looking in - be they in Rome, L'viv or Moscow or wherever fate places them - seem to find making an absolute moral judgment an 'easy' thing to do.

Alas, it seems there can be no true reconciliation until another old adage comes to pass - "Physician, Heal Thyself."

"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" and all of that...

Perhaps it is no wonder that there are so many myrrh-streaming icons these days.

Well this topic has certainly turned into a proverbial hot potato. Some of the posts shed more heat than light.

I think I am one of the most critical of Catholics, always ready to criticise and point out what I perceive to be nonsense, baloney and hypocrisy issuing forth from the hierarchs of my own Church. And I'm quite aware of the cruelties and injustices perpetrated by Catholics over the centuries against Orthodox Christians. And I just hate and regret we have done that kinda stuff. I do think we're laid off of it or at least toned it down in recent times, which is good and over-due...

Now that I know abt. St. Alexis Kabaliuk, I think I'll add him to the list of Orthodox saints I regularly invoke; ones the Lord raised up within the context of EC and Orthodox tensions/quarrels; along with St. Alexis Toth and St. Maxim Sandovych. I picture them in heaven interceding for us along with St. Josaphat, the beatified Martyrs of the UGCC of the 20th. century and the Blessed Martyrs of Pratulin. Without forgetting Bl. Bishop-Confessors Pavlo Gojdich and Vasyl Hopko, and Bl. Hieromonk Metod Trcka.

What could it hurt?

Likewise, I too picture the late bishops, +Nicholas of Amissos, Orestes (Chornock), John (Martin), the Basils of Pittsburg (both Takach and Schott),Soter, the martyrs Paul, Teodor and Vasyl and countless others along with the numerous Orthodox martyrs and professors of the faith who died in the Gulag along with their priests and faithful departed doing the same.