www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News New Ukrainian Catholic Metropolitan See in Brazil

Pope Francis today [goo.gl] raised the Ukrainian Catholic eparchy of S�o Jo�o Batista in Curitiba, Brazil, to a metropolitan see with the same name. Bishop Valdomiro (Koubetch) becomes the first Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Brazil.

At the same time, Pope Francis created the new Ukrainian Catholic eparchy of Imaculada Concei��o in Prudent�polis, Brazil, making it a suffragan of the new metropolitan see. Bishop Meron (Mazur), until now auxiliary bishop, becomes the first eparchial bishop of Imaculada Concei��o in Prudent�polis.

The new metropolitan see will be the eighth in the Ukrainian Catholic Church, which now has four metropolitan sees in Ukraine and one each in Brazil, Canada, Poland and the United States.

Many years to Metropolitan Valdomiro and Bishop Meron!

Isn't it for the Patriarch and Synod of the UGCC to determine their own metropolitan sees?

Wonderful news! May God grant many years to Metropolitan Valdomiro and Bishop Meron!


I believe that outside of the Patriarchal/Major Archepiscopal territory the Pope plays a role in raising an eparchy to a metropolitan See.

Inside Ukraine, it is for the Synod together with its Head to decide, after consultation with the Holy See, as in the case of The recently established metropolitan sees of Ivano-Frankivsk and Ternopil-Zboriv. Outside Ukraine, the decision is formally made by the Holy Father, but of course on the initiative of the Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. When the Pope makes a decision like this, he does so as the Pastor of the Universal Church, not as head of the Latin Church.

Stories like this absolutely tell us Orthodox in clear, plain and unambiguous language that there are no 'sister churches', that there are no 'sui juris' churches or any ranks, rites or anything of 'equal dignity.' They are all words and phrases for lawyers to parse.

I am as part of the Orthodox world which is sympathetic an to the west and ecumenical dialogue; there are no voices on our side positing a supportive take on such interpretations of primacy and jurisdiction. Supreme, universal jurisdiction is the, I repeat THE obstacle which will continue to keep unity the elusive carrot on the end of an ever moving stick.

I have no doubt that the Ukrainians in Brazil have need of more Bishops or dioceses. But, the need to be dependent on Rome for the same, rather than the Synod of the UGCC is something that we can not understand. The loyalty to the Holy Father of the Greek Catholic churches is perhaps unparalleled in the west. The respect they receive in return seems to us to not be of equal status. The ratonale and legal analyses are the same as those which produced 'Ea Semper' and 'Cum Data Fuerit'. 'Plus ca change' and all that. (By the way, it isn't too hard to figure out where the loyalty of the bishops outside of the Synods of the Eastern Churches ultimately has to lie - it is not in Lvov or Kiev for sure - perhaps emotionally, but in the end practicality reigns.)

It also occurred to me that the Ukrainians in the Disapora commemorate not only the Pope of Rome in the Liturgy and the Great Entrance, but also their Patriarch. Why do the dual commemoration if this statement represents the structure and status of the 'sui juris' Church outside of the original borders at the time of union?

" Outside Ukraine, the decision is formally made by the Holy Father, but of course on the initiative of the Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. When the Pope makes a decision like this, he does so as the Pastor of the Universal Church, not as head of the Latin Church."

This really, to use the vernacular term, 'bugs' even the most union minded of Orthodox.

If the Patriarch has no real authority beyond the boundaries of his homeland, why commemorate him at all?

For example, the Russian Patriarchate has churches outside of her original homeland, such as the USA. Parishes under her omophorion commemorate the Moscow Patriarch, but other Russian oriented ones as in the OCA do not, nor did they do so as the former Metropolia. The OCA commemorates their own Primate, their own Metropolitan. If the foreign patriarch in Kiev has no control over the operation of the Ukrainians in the the diaspora in terms of selecting bishops and determining diocesan structures, why then is he commemorated at all liturgically? I understand an emotional connection to the homeland and all, but from a traditional eastern theological point of view, it seems as if the Pope in Rome is the primate of the eastern Catholics in the Diaspora and the Patriarch is mere 'window dressing.'

From the Orthodox ecclesiology, this is like attempting to put a circular peg in a square hole. It doesn't fit.

I think the idea is that Brazil is a Latin dominated area, therefore in an effort to maintain some order the Pope is involved (ideally just consulted, but in practice today I'm sure it's more than that). On the other hand, on Liturgical and Spiritual matters, the Bishop/Patriarch's authority is proper.

The idea that only the direct Bishop and Patriarch can be commemorated during the Liturgy, is strictly a Byzantine practice - the Oriental Churches do not have this restriction.

The proper Byzantine rule is One Step Up.

In a Parish Church, the Bishop is commemorated.

Should the bishop liturgize alone, he commemorates the Patriarch.

Under the same circumstance, the Patriarch commemorates the Pope.

Commemorates the pope, along with all other Patriarchs and archbishops whose archdioceses are not consolidated under a patriarch.

Not to divert the conversation, but I'm reminded of a thread on that matter: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise?.

I am sure that Pope Francis had the best interests of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Brazil at heart, but the Roman system itself is plain wrong here. Now that the ban against married clergy in the diaspora has been lifted (where is the Latin diaspora, by the way?) Rome needs to recognize the jurisdiction of the Eastern Patriarchs and their Synods wherever they have faithful. This includes the appointing of bishops, creating eparchies, metropolias etc.

After the Union of Brest, the practice was exactly this - only the Ruthenian EC Metropolitan of Kiev commemorated the Pope and to be in union with Rome meant that one was in union with that Metropolitan.

After the Synod of Zamosc, the practice was for all priests to commemorate the Pope and Metropolitan twice during the Divine Liturgy - at the great Entrance and immediately following.

Later, these commemorations by all priests were repeated at each Ektenia.

When ROCOR reunited with the MP, every ROCOR priest now too commemorates the Patriarch of Moscow et al. at every ektenia and always.

The Melkites only have ONE commemoration of everyone, beginning with the Pope, during their Divine Liturgy.

It would be great if the Slavic EC Churches could follow suit.

When I helped with a Divine Liturgy at my university Catholic Club, I got ribbed by the Latins after they heard four commemorations of the Pope during it . . .

"So you guys are more papal than us, and the Pope, I daresay . . ." one fellow said.

That part of our Divine Liturgy needs reformation absolutely . . .

Alex

In ACROD, we follow the same practice in referring instead to the Ecumenical Patriarch in the litanies and the Great Entrance. So, . like many with practices of the "Orthodox"/"Eastern" tradition, the answer is a clear,firm and unambiguous, "It depends."

Exactly my point.

Sorry, I am only coming across this thread now and wanted to comment.

I briefly discussed this issue with His Beatitude when I met him.

He said the same thing about Pope Francis and also said that the Pope understands the situation of EC's in Latin America very well. He also discusses these things with him in advance.

Given the situation in Ukraine, His Beatitude has been otherwise occupied of late and His Holiness and he work together on such matters, especially in these times.

This isn't, therefore, a problem that is "systemic" in any way.

Alex