www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Vatican Studying Steps To Make Lybomyr Husar a Patriarch

With alot of discussion lately on the Kyivan Patriarchate, I thought that this would be interesting.

I find the reference to Vatican II to be very positive. Many Orthodox feel that the Catholic Church is not genuine in her "new" commitment to ecumenism.
There is alot of talk, but not much follow through.

I think that this article below, reflects an example of Catholic words being consistent with Catholic actions.

What say you?

As a Ukrainian Greek Catholic, I support the position being taken by the Church. I am also in favor of the establishment of the Patriarchate for the reasons Patriarch Lybomyr gives (Contrary to the fact that some people on this forum accuse me of being a Ukrainian nationalist.)

One question that I do have is this: How seriously can the Catholic Church take the objections of the Moscow Patriarchate. Does "supported and accepted by the Eastern churches -- both Catholic and Orthodox." imply all?

Ukrainian Cardinal Says Vatican Studying Steps To Make Him Patriarch
LVIV, UKRAINE, Nov 23, 02 (RISU.org.ua) � Nov-21-2002 Cindy Wooden Catholic News Service VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Vatican is studying the practical steps that would have to be taken, including ecumenically, in order to proclaim the head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church a patriarch, said Ukrainian Cardinal Lubomyr Husar of Lviv.
The cardinal, spiritual leader and major archbishop of the Ukrainian church since 2001, has continued the 40-year campaign of his predecessors to win recognition of the patriarchal status of their Eastern-rite church.
"I think something is moving," the cardinal said Nov. 20 while at the Vatican for a meeting of the Congregation for Eastern Churches.
"Studies are being made because it is a very delicate question," one that could provoke strong negative reactions from Orthodox churches if not explained and discussed with them, he said.
Cardinal Husar said he believes Pope John Paul II would like to give the Ukrainian Catholic Church the patriarchal status that most of the other Eastern Catholic churches have enjoyed for decades.
In the past, he said, "it was simply a matter of a papal decree."
But since the Second Vatican Council and its embracing of "ecumenical commitments and sensitivity," he said, the Vatican wants to ensure any decision is "supported and accepted by the Eastern churches -- both Catholic and Orthodox."
In June 2001, Cardinal Husar told reporters in Rome he was "trying to convince the Holy See that both for ecumenical reasons and in keeping with the Second Vatican Council," the patriarchate of his church should be recognized.
It would show the Orthodox that the Vatican fully respects the traditions of Eastern Christianity and would not try to impose structural changes on their church as a condition for full unity, the cardinal had said.
In addition, he had said, the Second Vatican Council's document on the Eastern Catholic churches specifically recognized the patriarchate as "a traditional form of government in the Eastern Church" and said that "where needed, new patriarchates should be erected."
But in the 38 years since the document was issued no new Catholic patriarchates have been created.
The Melkite, Maronite, Coptic, Syrian, Chaldean and Armenian Catholic patriarchates, which are of ancient origin, were recognized formally in the centuries following the 15th-century Council of Florence.
The powers of a major archbishop and a patriarch are the same: Both are the heads of their churches and can convoke a synod of their bishops. However, when a synod of bishops elects a patriarch, he requests ecclesial communion with the pope. When a synod elects a major archbishop, the election must be confirmed by the pope.

ALity,
I too agree with the reasons Patriarch Lubomyr gives. A united Kyivan Patriarchate is not only need for the church or Ukraine, but for all Slavs.

Ality, I also sent you a personal message.

-uc

With regards to the MP, I think after (1) the forced pseudo-synod of 1946, in which the MP took a major part;

(2) the fact that the current MP Patriarch "Alexei" was a known KGB operative ("Agent Drozdov");

(3) the ridiculous paranoid behavoir of said MP Patriarch to the Holy Father's visit to Ukraine in 2001;

(4) the continued outcries by said MP Patriarch and his hierarchs against Catholic priests and activity in the former USSR;

(5) recommendations from the MP to the Putin government to suspend registration for parishes and withold entrance visas for Catholic priests (when Catholic authorities say nothing when the MP establishes parishes and missions in traditionally Roman Catholic territories)

and (6) continued resistance by the MP to return property to the UGCC which was absconded by the Soviet government and given to the MP, that Rome shouldn't seriously consider any objections by the MP with regards to the UGCC Patriarchate.

This boy has cried "wolf" far too many times. It should be clear by now that Alexei will never be happy with the situation until a similar situation as 1946, i.e. the liquidation of not only the Greek Catholic, but also the Ukrainian Orthodox Church/Kyivan Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church occurs.

I don't understand why Rome has to study this issue at all. It is simple. Patriarch Husar was elected by an act of the UGCC Synod. All that is needed are mutual formal professions of communion between the two churches. Orientalium Ecclesiarum of Vatican II as well as the Eastern Code of Canons provides for the establishment of patriarchates where appropriate.

And if the establishment of a Patriarchate for the largest Greek Catholic church in the world with eparchies worldwide doesn't qualify for appropriate, I would like to know what does.

Just a minor correction, brother Ality. That's "Lubomyr" as he spells his name in English.

Thanks Diak,

I never really noticed that I was spelling it wrong. Perhaps I am not? Is Lybomyr the Ukrainian spelling in Latin characters?

I completely agree with your positions on the MP. That was what I was hoping to hear. I could'nt have said it any better.

But being that I am currently taking an ecumenism class. I don't think it is unwise to discuss this issue with the Orthodox. But I believe that this means more with the traditional five patriarchates. Moscow needs a generation to purge herself of her past.

the reason is to show the Orthodox that the Catholic Church does not wish to act unilaterally on such an huge ecclesiological issue. Consider if East and West were united right now. All of the Churches would be involved in this decision. I think that this sensitivity on Rome's part is, in essence, acting in the spirit of unity, even though full unity is not yet achieved. I support it so long as our Church is not being used as a political pawn for other interests.

ALity.

As with many (most) things in the church, be it Rome, Moscow or wherever, politics is dominate, not spirituality.

Ality,
His Beatitude's first name in transliterated Ukrainian would be spelled Liubomyr / Ljubomyr / Lyubomyr. His surname in transliterated Ukrainian is actually Huzar. But I suspect that when he immigrated to the USA with his parents, they adopted the spelling "Husar"; Lubomyr is a simplified, anglicized spelling corresponding to the Ukrainian form which is a palatized "l" which disappears anyhow when you get non-Slavic speakers trying to say it.

"lybomyr" as you have it would imply that his name starts out sounding like "liberty", which it does not.

Dear Friends,

It is wonderful to hear that the Vatican is at least making the effort to address this issue!

I think, though, that it would be naive on our part to reduce all matters of "Orthodox objection" to the orbit of the Moscow Patriarchate alone - and to dismiss their Patriarch on the grounds of his past personal and ecclesial actions.

Whatever the Moscow Patriarch's personal past and current attitudes and actions undertaken toward the Latin Church - that doesn't prevent the Vatican from wanting to be on good terms with him.

Whatever the sufferings of the Patriarchal UGCC - well, that hasn't prevented the Vatican from ignoring it or else treating it in a "Machusyny" fashion (as a "step-child").

And the fact is that world Orthodoxy is today fully behind the Moscow Patriarchate, including all other Orthodox Patriarchates. It is behind it with respect to Rome's actions in Russia and it is behind it with respect to Moscow's condemnation of the autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox movement.

Neither Moscow nor any other Orthodox Church anywhere has said anything about the 1946 synod - nor are they going to.

The idea of returning churches taken by Moscow in 1946 is glossed over - did not the uniates first take them from the Orthodox in 1596?

Is not the MP seriously considering canonizing Fr. Kostelnyk as a "Great Martyr" even right now?

From the MP's point of view, it can do no wrong.

The real culprit here, according to Moscow, is the UGCC.

Moscow continually maintains that it is the UGCC, not the MP, that is guilty of complicity in using military force to take churches etc.

On the flip side, the fact is also that the UGCC Patriarch and his Church are demonstrating strong leadership in Eastern Europe that is finding an appeal among Orthodox themselves.

Orthodox Ukrainians are actually turning to the UGCC from all Orthodox jurisdictions for various reasons. Even some bishops, I hear . . .

Patriarch Lubomyr's attitude of "totally Orthodox (in communion with Rome), totally Ukrainian, reaching out to all" is actually resonating among many Ukrainians and others.

The Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate is showing a strength and resilience that impresses the Vatican as well .

If the Vatican is, at long last, seeking to make peace with its old "enemy of ostpolitik" the Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate, then this must mean that it has assessed the situation to conclude that the UGCC has come into its own "over there" and that it is going to stay as the vibrant ecclesial force the Vatican has always thought would die out on its own.

As Diak says, it could also very well be that the Vatican has observed that when it comes to the MP, "nema z kym hovoryty" "there is no one to talk to" - so they might as well talk to their friends, the Ukrainian Greek-Catholics.

Whatever further diplomatic inroads into Russia the Vatican is planning - and make no mistake about it, they are planning them - if recognition of the UGCC's Patriarchate results, then that's all we need from Rome. We will never have to speak to it again, if we don't want to

But the strength and continual development of the UGCC in Eastern Europe is its own "legitimation" of her Patriarchal status.

For me, the Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate became a fact and a reality the day I heard our Basilian pastor commemorate "Patriarch Lubomyr."

After that elating experience, Rome has a tough act to follow!

Alex

Unfortunately, nobody down here commemorates Kyr Husar as Patriarch and this is sad and sometimes makes me depressed. I'm not sure of the correct statistics but about 85% or 90% of our priests down here are Basilians. That's why I always tell you guys that if you get to see Patriarch Husar tell him that we need Studites down here. But it's good to know that there are some Basilians in North America that are wiseing up. Does anybody know if in Ukraine all the churches commemorate Husar as Patriarch? I heard something about some kind of reformation of the Basilian order, is this true?
Lauro

Dear Lauro,

Yes, there was a proposal by someone to make the Basilians into Studites . . .

I believe they have been reformed more than once in their history and each time they've been "improved worse."

There are many who won't budge on the Patriarchal issue unless Rome says "Boo."

Let's remember that the current Basilian vows include the old Jesuit vow to be loyal to the Pope until one's "final breath."

They are under obedience in this way and if they were to do anything without Rome's approval, they would be in direct violation of their vows.

So if Rome can hurry up and acknowlege our Patriarchate, then so much the better.

I've heard of Basilians in Ukraine commemorating "His Blazhenitude."

When our own Basilian pastor did that, I realized these were the beginnings of the leaks that would eventually break the dyke.

It's just a matter of time . . .

Alex

You're coming around to all of this patriarchal stuff, Alex...miracles still happen...

While I don't disagree with most of your points, I do think (albeit in a pessimistic way) that Alexei will not change from his turf-conscious ways with regards to the UGCC, the UOC/KP and the UAOC. These all represents lost property, lost influence, lost faithful, lost income. The percentage of church goers in the MP in Ukraine is higher than that in Russia. It is not surprising that he would show some concern for potentially losing more faithful.

Your point about the significance of the UGCC in Eastern Ukraine, strongholds of the MP, is also well taken. The sprouting of over twenty new parishes since the erection of the new UGCC Eparchy of Donetsk is proof that there is a hunger for Christianity, and that the UGCC can be relevant and successful in evangelizing.

Dear Diak,
I didn't know that in Donetsk the UGCC was setting up parishes. That's fantastic! considering that, that area of eastern Ukraine was russified very much. As you say, miracles do seem to happen. It's really good to hear such news.
Lauro

Dear Diak,

Yes, the greatest miracle I've seen lately is our Basilian pastor's change of heart!

I've been involved with the Patriarchal movement for some time, I think even before most of your time (I don't know how old you are, but you are wise beyond your years to be sure!)

The MP's attitude, while certainly rooted in some material considerations , is about Great Russian chauvinism and the "Three Russias" view of history.

Even when a young Stepan Bandera was being tried in a Polish court, Polish public opinion at the time saw in the term "Ukraine" an emigre development that stemmed from North America and not from "Malopolska" or Ukraine under Poland.

I will invoke our old friend, Orthoman, to agree with him that Moscow should have done everything it could to establish a Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate in Kyiv, rather than an autonomous Kyivan Metropolitan (whose hands are tied by Moscow anyway).

And the "uncanonical" Kyivan Patriarchate is growing by leaps and bounds too!

There is a cathedral of the UOC-KP being completed in Kazakhstan and, as you know, there are even three Greek hierarchs who have come into communion with it as well.

Now it is the waiting game to see what Rome will do next.

My own view is that there is a great likelihood that Rome will respond positively toward a UCPatriarchate as part of a new "counteroffensive" toward Moscow.

Alex

Tak pravda, brat' Olexander...Yes, Alexei embodies that complex mix of the old Russian imperial notion of being the Third Rome, the successor of the Byzantine Empire post-1453, and the Soviet totalitarian approach to his people and territory.

What does "Patriarch" mean to the Pope that "Cardinal" does not? Eastern Catholic "Patriarchs" cannot even appoint their own bishops so how are they any different than Cardinals?