www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Catholicos cardinalated

Not a matter of my feelings.
No, it doesn't.

Again, not a matter of feelings.
You share the same Catholic Tradition and Apostolic roots and might proclaim the same Lord, but none of that includes Pastor Aeternus.
But then neither the Soviet Union nor the Patriarchate of Moscow ever told Met. Sheptytski that headed a valid church, let alone an equal to the primate, now, did they?

You mean Soviet Ukraine: the Vatican stripped Met. Sheptytski of any jurisdiction in Russia, to hand it over to Bp. d'Herbigny. Neither the Soviets nor the Moscow Patriarchate were involved.

Collaboration? You mean like annexing Galicia from Poland to Ukraine?

Your deep intellectual convictions then...in saecula saeculorum.

How about the facts as they lay.

D'Herbigny's program suffices to show what the application of Pastor Aeternus means for the East, as if the Crusader Patriarchates were not enough.

Msgr Michel d'Herbigny's program has since been repudiated by the Vatican and Catholic bishops gathered in Council.That's a fact. Few are suggesting that they be revived. That the vestiges of the bad policy of the past sometimes linger on is unfortunate. That you understand these programs to be a crass application of Pastor Aeternus rather than the misinformed zealotry of a learned Jesuit is your interpretation of those facts. If the reestablishment of an undivided Church is to be accomplished it will have to be on terms acceptable to both sides, and I'm sure Pastor Aeternus will have to be dealt with in its own proper time, and on terms less hostile than your own. That's how I understand the facts.

Oh? When did that happen?

Last I was in Rome, the Russicum was still there. That's a fact.

When I was in Poland, the spot of the Orthodox Cathedral was still occupied by Stalin's Palace of Culture, the site having been cleared before by the Polish Second Republic (the one who signed the concordat), and the Neo-Unionists were still around in Eastern Poland. Later on, the UGCC had trouble getting its cathedral in Przemyshl, still occupied by Carmelites. Those are facts.

I've yet to meet or hear of a member of the "Russian Greek-Catholic Church sui juris" who was, in fact, Russian. Not that I think the Vatican should adopt phyletism more than it does, but I do wonder why they don't go UGCC or Ruthenian. In any case, the Vatican already has four bishops in Russia. True, they are Latin ordinaries, but far more numerous "Eastern Catholic sui juris" are made to do with that in the West, yet the Russian "sui juris" is pushing for their own Russian hierarchy. Those are facts.

The Italian Bishops Conference doesn't have the slightest qualms about telling, for instance, the Romanian sui juris Major-Archbishop what to do about his flock. That is a fact.

It seems they all didn't get your memo.

They never died. Hence no revival is needed.

Au contraire: it is alive and well and more than lingering beneath the surface. The silence the Vatican greeted the call of its Eastern bishops gathered two years ago to be allowed to exercise their "rights" to ordain married men, and the statement of the prefect of the Congregatio pro Ecclesiis Orientalibus on the same topic this year are but two indications erupting on the surface.
No, just the context of the "patristics" cut and pasted into PA: for example, the Formula of Hormizdas, which most bishops refused to sign (the Metropolitan of Thessalonica tore it in two) and the Arbp. of Constantinople signed only after he had amended it at the beginning-PA and Abp. Hormisdas of Old Rome ignored such facts, and the fact that Abp. Hormisdas had told the Emperor to use force to secure the bishops signatures.


take for sake of argument your assertion of a divided Church, it will have to be on terms acceptable to God.


Then you are not grasping the facts.
You are misunderstanding.

Sorry, what "New Union" would that be?

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the two Maronite cardinals.

The scheme in inter-war Poland for conversion of Russia. The idea was to build up a base in the kresy of converted Orthodox with a rite identical to the Great Russian/Post-Nikon use under the Latin bishops, to serve as a springboard "for the conversion of Russia." A pet project of the Polish Republic's supreme pontiff, Bp. D'Herbigny was consecrated in secret and sent to Poland and the Soviet Union to implement it-Warsaw, once it had confined Met. Sheptytsky, as the Vatican had already decided, insisted on Polonization and the Latin Rite in the rest of the Republic. The Vatican, however came up with the "Neo-Union" to seduce the Orthodox. The matter was dropped and unresolved in the concordat, leaving both sides to push the implementation of their own agenda, both at the expense of the Orthodox.

More mISAinformation...

Bishop Michael was secretly ordained to secretly supply a Latin hiearchy for Latin Catholics in the Soviet Union. After ordaining bishops for Moscow, Mogilev, Odessa, and St Petersburg, he was compromised by a spy, the bishops arrested, and the project abandoned.

Metropolitan Andrew nominated Greek Catholic exarchs for Poland, Russia and Belarus and he was given extensive jurisdiction by Rome. Two of those exarchs are now Blesseds Nicholas and Leonid.

The Neo-Unia was the return of Belarusian Greek Catholics to union on their own iniative in 1905 after their suppresion in 1839. Soviet persecution and Polish harassment doomed the movement so that only a single parish remains in Poland. When the Iron Curtian fell a few thousand Belarusian Greek Catholics again resurfaced in Belarus.


In the interest of fairness, however, I refer you to Fr. Serge's, of blessed memory, article.

http://theor.jinr.ru/~kuzemsky/MKUZEMSKY95.pdf

I guess I'm a little slow tonight; it took me about 15 seconds to get the "mISAinformation" thing.

I thought it was perfectly cromulent!:)

*mISAinformation copyright 2012 Deacon Lance

To lance a boil
As I said, exactly the set up in Poland (outside of former Galicia and westwards), i.e. the Vatican did not limit his jurisdiction to their Latins. Rather he had authority on all matters pertaining to Russians whether in or out of the Soviet Union.

As for "the project abandoned," you would have to be more specific what you meant by that, Deacon.

As I said, Met. Andrew was brushed aside to make way for Bp. D'Herbigny, and then the Congregatio pro Ecclesia Orientali. The powers you refer to, Deacon, were given in 1907-8, i.e. when the Metropolitan had no chance of exercising them, as Poland, Russia and Belarus (and Ukraine) were safely in the hands of the Most Orthodox Czar. Once the "Vatican's most faithful daughter," the Polish Second Republic gained control of said areas, and Met. Andrew tried to exercise them under the regime of his co-religionists, the Vatican annulled them explicitly. They were not renewed until the Nazis took over the Soviet territory.

The exarchs you refer to whom you refer, one was appointed between the collapse of the Czar's government and the consolidation of that of the Marshall of Poland. Met. Andrew was in the Russia Empire at its fall, already trying to capitalize on the Patriarchate's moment of weakness, blissfully unaware that the Orthodox Ukrainians, let alone the Orthodox Russians, had no interest. The other was appointed, without Vatican approval: in fact, the Vatican annulled it and explicitly stated that Met. Andrew had no authority to even accept his exarch's resignation. Only when the War made the border into a front and annexed Galicia into Axis control, outside Soviet control, did the Vatican recognize any authority of the Metropolitan and his Exarch in the Soviet Union.

Those Belarus (and others) who renounced Orthodoxy in 1905 did so by embracing the Vatican's Latin rite, at the dictates of its hierarchy in the area.

So, in this analogy, is the boil you? If so, that's very humble of you.

Misinformation. Caveat lector.

For anyone interested, attendees posted handheld YouTube videos:

Consistory and Meet and Greet random and choppy:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1L7mYDn7ALAPC44Plwo67TgiNdmoOgDK&feature=view_all

Latin Mass with the Pope, choppy and shaky:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1L7mYDn7ALClt3IN6tQ1vIKVKJxEA3mq

Holy Qurbono with the new Cardinal-Catholicos in Rome, bit choppy, but viewable and in entirety, except for portico Liturgical reception:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1L7mYDn7ALDf1hrJunwAi4GtVHVMfg2s


There is an official DVD to be released. More info when it is released.