www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ukraine Catholic Patriarch?

>>>Thus, should the two jurisdictions in
Ukraine unite with the assistance of the EP, it would be in FULL COMMUNION with the Autonomous Church (MP) under Metroplitan
Volodymyr.<<<

Not necessarily. It seems probable that the Moscow Patriarchate will not recognize the new unified jurisdiction, since it considers only its own Autonomous Metropolitan Church to be the legitimate Kyivan Church. If it does not recognize the jurisdiction, then the signs of visible communion will be witheld--commemoration in the diptyches, concelebration of the clergy, extension of the Chalice to its members. In that case, there would be no "direct" communion between the two, but rather "mediate" communion, since both are in communion with other Churches which are in communion with them; i.e., Moscow is (for the time being, at least) in communion with Constantinople, which will be in communion with the new jurisdiction. Of course, if Moscow gets ticked enough (as it did over Estonia), it could break communion with Constantinople as well. But in that case, the two Patriarchates would still be in mediate communion through those Orthodox Churches that are in communion with both. A real crisis could emerge, however, if one or both of the Patriarchates demands that those in communion with it withdraw from communion with the other. At that point, the lack of a meaningful primacy within the Orthodox Church will begin to have real consequences--as was foreseen by Bishop Kallistos and Archbishop Vsevolod some time ago.

Dear Friends,

As a Ukrainian Catholic who is also close to the Orthodox, I appreciate your many insights on our Church issue as well as your Christian best wishes (thank you Dr. John).

Metropolitan Volodymyr Sabodan is a very good man and taught many of the current Ukrainian Orthodox bishops in seminary. Everyone is agreed he is a good and warm-hearted gentleman!

Stuart is correct in that the union of the two "lesser" and "uncanonical" jurisdictions in Ukraine will not be recognized by Moscow nor by its "Autonomous" Church in Ukraine.

That is the sum of the problem with respect to future unity and canonicity.

But there is no way that Ukrainian Orthodox with, forgive me, a Ukrainian identity that is not subservient to Moscow Russophilism will agree to being under Moscow through its new Autonomous Church which is really the Russian Orthodox affiliate in Ukraine.

I have been observing this not only from the vantage point of internet news stories, but also through contacts with the government and churches in Ukraine.

There are, truth be told, clergy in the Autonomous Church in Ukraine who would dearly like to be in union with an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church. As a matter of fact, these clergy seem to me to have a better grasp of the social and political undercurrents here than the more nationalistic variety, although the former are very proud of their Ukrainian heritage.

Their view seems to be that the Autonomous Church is controlled directly by Moscow and there will be no unity or peace until the umbilical cord is cut.

We shall see how things develop and I join with you in prayer for a united Orthodox Catholic Church in Ukraine under an autocephalous Patriarch in Kyiv to which I too hope to belong in the future.

Alex

Patriarch Josyf did many things on his own authority, including the consecration of Bishop Lubomyr Husar without the Pope's approval

While I agree that if the Eastern Catholic Churches are in fact Churches and not parts of the Roman Church, they need not ask Rome�s permission to do such things, I�m confused here because as I understand things now stand throughout Catholicism, consecrating a bishop without Rome�s approval means excommunication. That�s the technicality that got Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (of blessed memory) in trouble. Or does this apply only to Roman Catholics?

As for a Ukrainian Catholic patriarchate of Kiev, I�m �conflicted� as they say. It�s great news for the internal affairs of Eastern Catholics but terrible for relations with the Orthodox, and like it or hate it, the MP is the largest Orthodox church in Ukraine. Understandably the MP sees it as Uniatism all over again: setting up a copycat Church on its turf (unlike Galicia, Kiev and the north and east of Ukraine are Russian) to grab converts.

Serge

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>

I am confused too. While I understand that informal fraternity exists between various parts of the Church and discussion and interchange takes place in which various Vatican organs may offer advice, counsel and opinion, but that the election of bishops for the Church in Ukraine is formally handled by the Ukrainian Synod. Is the point that some priests at the Vatican advised against Husar?

Maybe the point is to this matter of the Archexarchate which I do understand was an unclear initiative.

Olga

Dear Serge,

Actually, I agree with you on the point of the Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate. Better a Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate, independent of Moscow.

As to how large the MP in Ukraine is, there are conflicting reports. Gallup says there are just over 10 million autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox with 4.5 million belonging to the Autonomous Church. It's really impossible to know anything about this for sure.

But the days of the MP in Ukraine are numbered.

And "Kiev" is now spelled "Kyiv"

Alex

Dear Serge and Olga,

Patriarch Josyf Slipyj considered himself to be a full-fledged Patriarch of his Ukrainian Catholic Church.

The Vatican didn't like it, felt that it hurt relations with Moscow, but wouldn't dare publicly oppose the old Confessor.

Instead, they got some members of the Ukrainian clergy to do what they wouldn't do, tell Slipyj that he can't be a Patriarch.

Slipyj chose to ignore all that. He also consecrated Bishop Husar as Patriarch and Head of what he considered to be a Particular Church.

Vatican II laid down the theology of the Particular Church and Slipyj took that Council at its word.

Today, there is no problem between Rome and Patriarch Husar on this score.

Cardinal Lefevre is another category altogether.

There was never any question of his being a Head of a Particular Church. He placed himself, knowingly and with full deliberation, into schism where his memory and those he consecrated remain to this day.

To even say "Patriarch Josyf" as many on this Forum do call him (you are wonderful ), is to declare his action, taken without Rome's approval and consent, to be valid.

Perhaps we are all in schism . . .?

Alex

The fact is: Kiev was the center of central European Slavic identity. Through political machinations (read: soldiers with weapons), various "christian" groups were established in Ukraine. Ukrainians have been subject to one or the other Kingdom/Empire for the past several centuries.

Now that the Ukrainians have the opportunity to decide things on their own (without some other power with guns being present) I seriously believe that the Lord will give them the grace to recognize the lunacy of past history and affirm the Christian nature of their nation. I personally would hope that they will agree to establish a Patriarchate in Kiev, get support from both Constantinople (and the other Orthodox synods) as well as Rome. And finally, we'll get the model of how East-West relations will be framed in the future.

May the Lord bless His Ukrainian servants! (All of them!)

Blessings!

Dear Dr. John,

Please! The word is "Kyiv" not "Kiev."

May what you have said come true!

The Pope seems to have banded the churches of the Kyivan Tradition together. These include the two Orthodox Churches about to unite and the Greek CAtholic Church.

Constantinople will play a great role. But, and this should be noted, so will Rome.

Ukraine has always had a Western European perspective. The Pope has reawakened that.

The Russians call ALL of us "Uniates," whether we're Catholic or Orthodox.

Our future lies more in a relationship with Europe and the Papacy than with any other Patriarchate.

Moscow is slowly losing its grip on Ukraine as people cast off Russian hegemony in their minds and hearts. Constantinople is wonderful, but it is only perceived as a vehicle by which "canonicity" can be achieved, nothing more.

The future is brighter for us now with the coming of the Pope.

If "Orthodoxy" means subservience to Moscow, the West with its Papacy is a much more encouraging alternative.

Alex