www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Patriarchs Husar and Filaret will celebrate a moleben together in Kyiv

Dear Lauro,

I think we all wish the Russian Church much growth in the Holy Spirit as it struggles to regain lost ground as a result of the soviet period.

But until we Ukrainians stand on our own two feet ourselves and affirm who we are and are own Patriarchal status etc., no external (to our Church and nation) force will do it for us.

Unfortunately, we have churchmen who need permission from Rome to do just about anything . . .

Alex

Dear Alex:

Here! Here! on the point about our episcopate not being able to do anything without Rome's approval. (Although I can't go against his Beatitude too hard since we are members of the same Plast fraternity).

Anyway, I heard a rumor lately that Rome was ready and willing to grant the UGCC "official" Patriarchal status, but that our prelates in Lviv failed to file the proper parerwork. Do you know if there's any truth to this?

Slava strastiyam Christovym.
Veselych sviat!

kl

P.S. Don't know if your're a Leafs fan, but if you are, please accept this Flyers fan's congrats on a great series. :p

But then out of curiosity, why did "Patriarch" Filaret actively support the anti-Patriarch Pimen and his schismatic synod in Bulgaria? I believe that there was a chance that he could have been the Patriarch of Moscow but he lost it to Alexis and there is sour grapes. My great-uncle Abbot Ioan of Rila [Alex...you ain't the only one who can name drop.... ] was telling me some time ago that he had actually been in contact with all the other schismatic bodies, trying to create a parallel Orthodox Church. Frankly, and as it is Pasha, I don't want to sound bad but in the end, I guess he would have to bite the bullet...no hierach would want to be in communion with him, certainly not HH Patriarch Maxim.

Anton

But, Lauro, there is a difference between canonical recognition and communion. OCA is a case in point. Many Orthodox disagree with OCA's canonical status, but this doesn't impede communion, concelebration with other Orthodox and the like. This was also the case with the Russian Church following the time in which the Patriarchate was declared. Other Orthodox were there from the middle east and the balkans and communion was in place during the entire period, even if not everyone may have agreed that the Metropolitan of Moscow was a "Patriarch". Filaret's group is not in communion with anyone, and AFAIK, noone is beating down his door to enter communion with him (except perhaps the Ukranian Byzantine Catholics).

Brendan

I remember that during the Pope's visit in Ukraine, the fact that Patriarch Filaret was there with the Pope and that JPII met him, deeply offended the Russian Orthodox Church. To the MP, Patriarch Filarert is an excommunicated lay man whose Church lacks canonicity. The Russians expected the Pope to recognize them as the "only" Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

The Moscow Patriarchate would see this (given its exagerations) as if the Catholic Church was recogniziong Filaret's Church as a true Orthodox Church, this would be as if Patriarch Alexei met the leader of the "Tridentine" Catholic Church, as if he was the leader of the Catholic Church.

Not a bad analogy, if an exagerrated one. It was, to say the least, curious, as the Vatican is well aware that Filaret is in communion with noone else in the Orthodox world. One can suspect that the meeting went ahead nevertheless because (1) Filaret has a good relationship with the Ukranian Greek Catholics, who were the locus of the Pope's visit to begin with and (2) the Orthodox who are in communion with the rest of the Orthodox world wouldn't meet with him.

Of course, the Pope is free to go where he likes and meet with whomever he likes. The Vatican is also not bound by the fact that the rest of Orthodoxy has not seen fit to enter into communion with Filaret, as that criteria is apprently not important to how Rome views the Orthodox Churches (one could imagine that Rome views Filaret's group as having "valid sacraments", for example, like other Orthodox Churches). Still, the awareness of the excommunication and the lack of communion with the remainder of Orthodoxy was perhaps politically not the best approach if one were interested in avoiding additional confrontations with the Moscow Patriarchate, at least. I suspect that by that point in time the Vatican had come to the conclusion that the relationship between the MP and the Vatican was not going to get incrementally much worse as a result of the visit with Filaret, as it was already fairly chilly -- and that may have been the right political assessment at the end of the day.

Brendan

Dear Krylos Leader,
So, you were a member of Plast? Well nobody's perfect. I used to be a member of CYM a long time ago, but you guys are OK anyway.
Lauro

Dear Brendan,
The only true reason that a Ukrainian Patriarchate has not as yet been recognized is due to Moscow and that's the fact. If you want to get into politics this thread will go on and on.
As I have said before it's only a question of time and nothing else.
Lauro

Dear Krylos Leader,

I think Rome has been objecting to our paper work in that regard for some time!

Alex

Dear Anton,

But I don't want Filaret to be patriarch of Ukraine.

I want Lubomyr Husar!

Alex

Dear Snoopy,

I don't think anyone would deny the Moscow Patriarchate recognition as a legitimate Church.

But Moscow refuses to acknowledge a fully independent Ukranian Orthodox Church and Patriarchate.

By supporting this, world Orthodoxy, at least to many Ukrainians, is seen as supporting religious colonialism.

Alex

Dear Brendan,

Being a North American, it might be fair to say that you see Churches in ecclesial terms alone.

There is also the national-cultural factor which is as much a part of the character of the ROC-MP as any other Orthodox Church in Europe and beyond.

For Ukrainians, if not for North American Orthodox, the issue is one of having a Ukrainian Orthodox Church, fully independent from the smothering and colonial embrace of Moscow.

That Ukrainian Catholics see Ukrainian Orthodox as allies and brothers - that isn't surprising.

It is largely a "Russian-Ukrainian" thing that didn't begin with Filaret.

For us as well, "canonical" becomes a moot point when it is used by religious-political enemies who cannot be neutral on that point.

At least we may find unity in each other's embrace, even if Elder Rome or world Orthodoxy, where the "Third Rome" seems to call the shots, deems us illegitimate.

Being uncanonical or even excommunicated on principle is sometimes the thing to do.

And didn't Moscow herself proclaim as a saint Arsenius of Rostov, himself excommunicated by the Russian Church of his day?

It's a political issue and I hope you can understand, if not agree - no one is expecting you to.

A good Pascha!

Alex

Dear Alex,
I for sure am one that would like to see Husar as Patriarch of all Rus-Ukraine and for me, he already is.
Lauro

XPUCTOC BOCKPECE! XPUCTOC AHECTI!

I'm a GREKO CATH who supports Patr. Filaret to a certain point. He had guts enough to go to pat. Alexei II as his right hand and demand a self governing ukrainian Orth. Church. No matter what type of person he is, he keeps the idea of an independent Ukrainian Church Alive.

Dear Ukiepatr,
I'm not against him either I just said that I prefer Husar as Patriarch. Maybe it's because he's a Studite.
Lauro