www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Kiev Cathedral

Except "the supreme authority in the Church" as he is referred to in the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, who, according to your Pastor Aeternus, who matters most of all and whose acceptance of communion with a church per the same defines "Catholic Communion."

For those whom Orthodoxy defines Catholic Communion, a different situation altogether.

Never do, Fr. Deacon. I didn't take its word when it said "Greek-Catholic Patriarchal Cathedral."

Nataly,

If I understand your question correctly, you're asking why the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic enthronement would have been served at the Roman Catholic Cathedral of St Alexander. I believe that it was because the UGCC Cathedral was, as yet, not completed and that the capacity of St Alexander (significantly more than that of any of the UGCC temples) was required due to the numbers expected to be in attendance. If I'm wrong, I'm certain that one of my Ukrainian brethren will correct me.

Many years,

Neil

The enthronement, which you can watch in the two YouTube videos, of His Beatitude Sviatoslav definitely took place in the Patriarchal Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ (Патріарший Собор Воскресіння Христового). I remember watching video of the event at the time. As can be seen from the video, the
interior of the cathedral is still unfinished.

The photos in the third link may cause confusion if you can't read the text very well. I think the first four pictures (one small picture and three larger ones) are of the Roman Catholic Church of St. Alexander (Александровский костёл) in Kyiv, followed by four pictures of the Patriarchal Cathedral, and then some more pictures either of the Church of St. Alexander or of other churches.

I see that the last pictures are of the Roman Catholic Church of St. Nicholas.

Okay...after being somewhat confused by this thread as to which link led to an image of the Patriarchal Cathedral in Kiev, I believe I finally saw pictures of the correct church. Thank you.

I have to say, as amazing as the exterior looks, the interior is distinctly un-amazing. The iconostasis (such as it is) is particularly surprising. I trust that what one sees in these images are the unfinished "before" shots and not the all-done "after" shots.

Neil,
No doubt, the enthronment did take place at the UGCC Patriarchial Cathedral as we see here It is true, it looked uncompleted.
As I understand the enthronment of the GC Patriarch can't be held in a Catholic church, like St. Alexander church? Do Roman Catholics share churches with Greek Catholics? The other question is about the Pope: why the UGCC has it's Patriarch if the only head of the church is the Pope? Please, enlighten me on this issue

Alright, I've followed some more links provided which show images of what the completed interior will eventually look like. Much better. Not spectacular, but much better.

"Do Roman Catholics share churches with Greek Catholics?"

Not typically, but from time to time it happens for one reason or another.

"The other question is about the Pope: why the UGCC has it's Patriarch if the only head of the church is the Pope?"

While the Pope of Rome is considered to be the "Supreme Pontiff" of the Catholic Church, it isn't as if he is the only bishop or archbishop or primate or even patriarch with responsibility to govern the Church. There are sui juris Churches in Communion with the Holy See, such as the UGCC, which are autonomously governed. Although the Roman Pontiff is the highest authority in the Catholic Church and, ultimately, obedience is due him, it isn't the Pope's role to directly govern every local Church or every juridical Church in Communion with Rome. As Pope Francis stated upon his election, he "presides over the Churches in charity."

No disrespect taken. Public acts of disobedience (Archbishop Lefebvre, for example) to the authority of Rome are declared as such by Rome. In this case, no declaration of disobedience has ever been levied, nor has any discliplinary action been taken, not even a formal warning. One has to conclude, therfore, that no act of disobedience exists. Were this considered to be a heinous act of rebellion threatening Catholic unity, Rome would have no option except to take some discliplinary action. Some Cardinals, including Schoenborn and George, have styled Patriarch +Sviatoslav as such publicly in his presence and have never received any formal discliplinary action.

At some point a Church has to fully act as a particular Church, and for the largest Eastern Catholic particular Church that exists on multiple continents to do so it is sensible by crowning her head as Patriarch. No lasting change has ever come from above down but only from the parishes and clergy upward. The formal election by our Synod expressing the will of our people and hierarchs, and the liturgical commemoration within our Church as Patriarch are the first necessary steps. If it is not a reality for us as a particular Church, we cannot expect it to be a reality outside.

Also not intending to be disrespectful, to me perhaps it seems this is a more assertive and direct way of realizing a particular ecclesiastical identity than your situation of having an administrator from another church appointed to be the head of your particular Church (ACROD) from outside, when as a particular Church you should be perfectly able to have a synod and elect your own shepherd and name him accordingly. The UOC-USA and UOCC did that as well, and although not without considerable ecclesiastical complications they have a hierarchy and means to elect their own shepherds.

Historically this sort of thing is certainly not unknown. In the Bulgarian church several synodal elections of Patriarch were not recognized as such by Constantinople for extended periods of time (initially beginning with +Leonty in the 10th century) although the Patriarch was elected and commemorated as such by his Synod, people and hierarchy. The Serbs elected three successive Patriarchs before being recognized by Constantinople as such.

Rome has not declared the election nor commemoration of the UGCC Patriarch to be invalid, an act of disobedience, contrary to the faith, or anything similar. We in the UGCC are a maturing Particular Church that has emerged from a catacomb existence, and taking the necessary steps to live fully as a Particular Church within the Catholic communion.

There are multiple groups for whom Orthodoxy defines Catholic Communion, yours is one, ours another, and there is at least one more. All proclaiming themselves Orthodox, all proclaiming themselves in Communion, but certainly not with each other.

As to our "Supreme Pontiff", evidentally he accepts the Particular Laws of the Syro-Malankara CC (and I presume the UGCC) to define their heads as they currently are titled (Catholicos and Patriarch), since he did not object to the particular Law nor were they modified or edited.

Does the rest of your Catholic Communion based on self-proclaimed Orthodoxy accept the title "Third Rome" and other self-styling? The other two self-proclaimed Orthodox in Catholic Communion groups don't accept your groups titles. Some within the other Self-proclaimed "Orthodox" of Oriental persuasion in Catholic Communion group even questions the use of the title "All-Holiness" by your "Ecumenical Patriarch".

I believe the cathedral interior so far remains unfinished. No doubt the decoration of this great sacred space will require many years of dedicated work, as well as generous donations to meet the costs.

Thank you. Your thoughtful response makes sense if you are of Cardinal Husar's view of the UGCC as being "Orthodox in communion with Rome." Of course we Orthodox don't view the unions in that light and, sadly in terms of the UGCC's historical loyalty to the Holy See in the face of great persecutions, I'm not sure Rome does either. In any event, your new leader is intelligent, youthful and offers great promise for the future.

As to us, I can't disagree. Part of the problem lies with the irregular organization of Orthodoxy in America, part is our failure to nurture celibate vocations (probably an overreaction to 20th century history), our release of several who became bishops elsewhere and our continued resistance to coming under the omophor of the UOCUSA - again history comes to play given the issues of a century ago with +Bishop Soter Ortynsky. I will say that Bishop Gregory seems to be a gem. After all, there were periods in our mutual past when Greeks sat on the throne of the Eparchy of Muchachevo.

Yes, I recall the Vatican stripped Met. Andrej Sheptytskyi of his faculties outside of Galicia, but then looked the other way once the Soviet Union decimated the Vatican's abilities to operate in the Soviet Union, and once Stalin reunited Galicia to Ukraine.

ah, yes, the benefits of that font of unity in one church with a supreme pontiff.


ACROD escaped from the Vatican, and thus is not subject to the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalis. It is not a "particular church," a recent invention of the Vatican to call a fish fowl. It is not even an autonomous Church-having only a single bishop, and a titular one at that. It should be attached to the OCA, rather than the EP, but that's another issue.

The UOC-USA and UOCC were never subject to the Vatican, but were formed partly outside of canonical Orthodoxy as an autocephalous Church (or the diaspora of one), not as a "particualr church." They were received into Orthodoxy by the EP, the only ecclesiastical complication again being the OCA's jurisdiction.

You're confused on a few points, but to get to the point: not the same situation. The EP isn't "the supreme authority in the Church." The Church of Bulgaria was in communion with the EP already when it declared the revival of the patriarchal title in 1953. The Phanar protested, but the other autocephalous primates attended the elevation and mooted it.

+Leonty was in the jurisdiction of Old Rome, not New Rome. That was decided at Constantinople IV (879). Autocephaly-or patriarchate-wasn't Constantinople's to give.

so yet again that authority vaunted by Pator Aeternus over all the church is honored in its silence by ignoring it.

just a reminder:
Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalis

I'm aware the UGCC ignored that last part to force your supreme pontiff's hand with a fait accompoli, namely the cathedral here in question, in UGCC diaspora.

The largest, of course, being the one that defines "Orthodoxy" by Pastor Aeternus. Beware the wide gate and broad road. and then there is the problem of those Sedevacantist types who define it more orthodox than the one who is supposed to speak ex cathedra.

The Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church define it quite fine, except that the full inclusion of the OO hasn't been fully accomplished yet.

I forgot that the Syro-Malankara CC adopted Latin mandated celibacy as its own. All the other sui juris churches are waiting for their "particular law", as was brought up by their bishops in the Vatican a few years ago.

It accepted Rome taking the title of "pope" to itself.

The patriarch of Moscow doesn't have a title "Patriarch of Third Rome." It's just a fact of historical interpretation.

Don't know who you are referring to.

specify.

^ As to ACROD being more appropriately attached to the OCA rather than the Metropolia,now known as the OCA, I will simply remind iAlmisry of the rallying cry of its founders (who were well aware of the Russophile views of the Metropolia's leaders): "Ani do Rim, ani do Moskvi! (neither to Rome nor to Moscow!)"