www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Catholic and Russian Orthodox Officials Meet in Geneva

20-March-2003 -- Vatican Information Service

CATHOLIC AND RUSSIAN ORTHODOX OFFICIALS MEET IN GENEVA

VATICAN CITY, MAR 20, 2003 (VIS) - The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity today released the following communique:

"Cardinal Walter Kasper, council president and His Eminence Kirill, metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, president of the Department for External Ecclesiastical Relations of the Patriarchate of Moscow, met in Geneva on March 19 to discuss the situation of the relations between the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church. In the course of the frank discussions it was agreed that further consultations will be held with the intention of resolving the problems that exist between the two Churches."

The following article was posted on RISU. I read it and wondered: Why always the negative responses from Moscow - the visit of the Pope to Ukraine, the move of the Patriarchal Sobor to Kyiv etc. I frankly don't see any future for the UGCC in the Moscow patriarch view. Is it the B-negative blood type?

Russian Orthodox Patriarch Comments On Greek Catholic Church
LVIV, UKRAINE, Mar 18, 03 (RISU.org.ua) – On 14 March 2003, Patriarch Alexis II, head of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), gave an interview to a weekly newspaper “The Kyiv Telegraph,” in which among other things he commented on the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC). Excerpts of the patriarch's comments follow.

According to Patriarch Alexis II, plans to move the residence of the head of the UGCC from western Ukrainian Lviv to Ukraine's capital, Kyiv, and establish a Greek Catholic patriarchate “conceal a threat of escalating the conflict between Orthodox and Greek Catholic believers in Ukraine.”

“In this intention of the Greek Catholic authorities, we can see their attempts at all costs to spread the influence [of the UGCC] to a traditionally Orthodox part of Ukraine, where the Greek Catholic presence is extremely limited,” said Patriarch Alexis II.

“The claims of Greek Catholics for a nation-wide status, which among other things is manifested in [their] plans to move from Lviv to Kyiv, seem rather absurd… In the Greek Catholic desire to achieve the status of patriarchate, we can see their intention to oppose themselves to Orthodoxy. The appearance of a uniate [Eastern Catholic] "Kyivan Patriarchate' will only lead to further destabilization of the already tense and complicated interreligious relations in the country,” said the Russian patriarch.

Patriarch Alexis II also stressed that the ROC “does not accept any statements that cast doubt on the canonicity of the Lviv Sobor in 1946 and its results, which liquidated the union [of the Greek Catholic Church with the Holy See] and adopted the union with the Orthodox Church.”

In addition, the head of the ROC noted that in today's situation it would be more prudent to negotiate at two levels. According to him, the first level of negotiations should be between Moscow and Rome, “because the Vatican should not decline responsibility for the policy of Ukrainian Greek Catholics who are under its jurisdiction.” The second level of negotiations, the patriarch said, should be direct dialogue between the representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) and the UGCC with the participation of observers from Moscow and Rome.

Patriarch Alexis II went on to emphasize that the first practical steps in this direction were made after the meeting in the Italian city of Bari in early 1998, when the UOC-MP and the UGCC started working groups to conduct negotiations. The patriarch also said that the negotiations were recently slowed down, for which he blamed the Greek Catholic side. “Strong will from both sides is needed to conduct fruitful dialogue,” he said. “[This will] should also be supported by readiness to change the situation for the common good of all the negotiating sides, rather than to preserve the status quo, beneficial only for one side,” said Patriarch Alexis II.

“So far, it is too early to talk about a cessation of the conflict, despite the absence of direct clashes between the Orthodox and uniates. Currently the situation is such that Orthodox believers in western Ukraine are in the state of an oppressed minority and both the local administration and the UGCC authorities are quite satisfied with this status quo,” said Patriarch Alexis II.

Source: “The Kyiv Telegraph”

It is probable that the best thing Patriarch Alexei can do for the good of Orthodoxy in Ukraine is accepting the formation by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of a single united Autocephalous Church in the Ukraine.

I recall the Bulgarian problem in the XIX Century, when the Turks and the Greek Patriarchate were unable to control the rightful aspirations of the Bulgarians to have their own Church. At that time various non-canonical Patriarchs had appeared, and a powerful Greek Catholic Exarchate was taking shape. But then, the EP finally understood that this could not be stopped, and at the request of the Russians they recognized an Autocephalous Bulgarian Church. After that, the Greek-Catholic Exarchate lost importance, and the Orthodox had stability.

About the "status quo" of the Orthodox in western Ukraine "under UGCC authorities", Patriarch Alexis can be sure that the majority of Ukrainian Greek Catholics weren't so happy under the Soviet regime officers, and his Bishops who actively collaborated with them.

Dear Snoopers!

I agree . . .

What is disturbing, however, is that the ROC maintains that the "synod" of 1946 is a perfectly legitimate one, despite Soviet involvement, initiative-taking etc.

So the ROC seems to be saying that while it feels absolved of any wrong-doing at that synod as far as being complicit with the Soviet authorities because it "had no choice," it is also saying that, Soviet influence notwithstanding, the synod was perfectly canonical and legitimate.

Is this not a violation of Orthodox canons and of the spirit of Christ?

Is there no one in world Orthodoxy that will say something to this?

Perhaps rather than try and promote the canonization of Fr. Gabriel Kostelnyk - whose public veneration was mandated by the Soviet authorities themselves in the time of the USSR - should not the ROC focus on preventing the further spread of the cult of Ivan the Terrible and Rasputin and other reactionary forces within the ROC?

I find this, as I said, most disturbing and a total turn-off.

All my life, I heard members in my community refer to the ROC as being a "soviet church" etc.

And I opposed these views.

Perhaps I was wrong after all.

Alex

Just a correction (for historical purposes). The Bulgarian Exarchate was not recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate until after World War II (and of course, now Patriarchate). Thus, the Church of Bulgaria was in a dubious position of being in Communion with the other Slavic Churches, but not the Greek ones. To a much lesser extent, an analogy to today would be the ROCOR, which is in Communion with Serbia and Jerusalem only.

Regarding the Ukrainian situation, here in North America there has been (since the 1990s) full Communion between the equivalent of the Autonomous Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (here the Autocephalous OCA) and the two Ukrainian Churches (of Canada and the USA, both EP). A beautiful example of this is the concelebration during the lenten services of OCA clergy (some right from Ukraine) and the UOC of the USA (EP).
Now this might be a proptotype for Ukraine, to at least reestablish temporary Communion between the Autonomous Church of the MP and the two seeking the omophorion of the EP, until one Autocephalous Church can be established (and if the election for Primate was legitimate, Met. Vladimir Sabodan UOC-MP would certainly appear to have the votes of the parishes, as they are now). Some points to ponder, would the western groups seeking the EP (that have many former Greek Catholics as their members) recognize Met. Vladimir if he was legitimatly elected (and both Moscow and the EP agreed to the resultant autocephaly)? Or, are there outside agendas other than the canonical establishment of a United and Totally Self-Governing Ukrainian Orthodox Church? It is ironic that the only Church OFFICIALLY in Full Communion with the North American SCOBA jurisdictions is the UOC-MP, under Met. Vladimir. Further adding to the complication is the establishing of Patriarch Philaret parishes in NA, largely at the expense of the UOC of the USA (EP). Pat. Philaret's checkered history may simply make him an unacceptable candidate to all of the other Orthodox factions.

In Peace Let Us Pray To The Lord,
Lord have Mercy!

Christ Is Among Us. Indeed He Was, Is, And Ever Shall Be!

Three Cents

Greek Catholics “Don't Intend To "Conquer' Eastern Ukraine”

LVIV, UKRAINE, Mar 21, 03 (RISU.org.ua) –

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) “does not intend and has never intended to "conquer' eastern Ukraine,” said Fr. Ihor Yatsiv, press secretary of the head of the UGCC. On 19 March 2003 Fr. Yatsiv responded to Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexis II, who commented on the UGCC in an interview for a weekly newspaper “The Kyiv Telegraph” on 14 March 2003. Among other things, Patriarch Alexis II accused the UGCC of trying to oppose Orthodoxy and claimed that the planned move of the Greek Catholic administrative center to Kyiv will aggravate the interreligious situation in Ukraine. Fr. Yatsiv's response follows.

“The UGCC does not intend and has never intended to 'conquer' eastern Ukraine. Since 1989, when the UGCC was legalized, [Greek Catholic] priests have moved to different places throughout the country to provide spiritual care for the faithful and today we have more than 100 communities in eastern, central and northern Ukraine.

The return of Greek Catholics to eastern parts of Ukraine during the times of the communist regime, as well as the return of the residence of the UGCC's head to Kyiv now, is by no means the Vatican's idea. This is the natural desire of Ukrainian Greek Catholics, since Kyiv is the center of Ukraine. It is home to heads of all Christian churches of Ukraine, regardless of the region where they currently have most believers.

The views and desires of the Moscow Patriarchate are not determining factors that should influence the development of the revived UGCC after 50 years of persecution.”

Here's a bit more on this from Catholic World News

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=21322

Opressed minority, hehe

By the way, how limited is Eastern catholic presence in Eastern Ukraine, in another post you told me that most Greek Catholics in Kyiv or Kharkiv were people who were sent by the Soviet authorities as migrant people, to East Ukraine.

In what sense would the presence of Greek Catholics in eastern Ukraine or the see of their Church in Kyiv would affect the Orthodox? I doubt they would get many converts.