www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Fr Taft on UGCC Patriarchate

Answer to what ails us: Pull Romes' bluff.

From: Department of Free Advice

To: Bishops of Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Synod

How to shake things up in four "easy" steps.

1. Divide Ukraine into two Metropolitates, Lviv and Kyiv.

2. Declare Lubomyr as Patriarch of Kyiv and the Whole Wide World.

3. Appoint someone else as Metropolitan of Lviv (aka "Major Archbishop"?).

4. Begin electing Greco-Catholic Bishops for the territories of the former Soviet Union.

------------------------------------

A couple of quotes from Father Taft. I think he is presenting things very clearly.

Quote

You're dealing with people who collapse history as if it happened yesterday. Let me use my classic example of the Anglicans. Does anybody think that Henry VIII took a plebiscite to see if the Catholics in England wanted to separate from Rome? No, they got up one morning and found that they were no longer Catholics. But that's 500 years ago. It certainly doesn't mean that the Catholic church could enter England with an army today and force all those people back into the fold. The same thing is true in Ukraine. These people, the Greek Catholics, have been in the Catholic church since 1596, and want to remain there. The Orthodox propose, and it's hard to even take this seriously, that Eastern Catholics should be given the “free choice” of joining the Orthodox church or joining the Latin church. That's like telling African-Americans in Georgia that because you're the descendants of somebody who got dragged there, you can have the “free choice” of living in Albania or Uganda. Maybe they want to stay where they were born, right in the good old USA. To call that a “free choice” is a mockery of language.

Quote

There are over 300,000 Catholics in European Russia, 65,000 of them in Moscow alone. To say that a church doesn't have a right to erect a diocese there is absurd, especially when the Orthodox plant metropolitans wherever they want. Let's take the example of Austria. Vienna has been a Catholic see since the first millennium, yet the Russian Orthodox have a metropolitan, not just “in” Vienna but “of” Vienna … that's his title. Yet there probably aren't 5,000 Russian Orthodox in the whole of Austria. Fair is fair. Is Moscow their canonical territory? Yes, but guess whose canonical territory Vienna is. They come up with the argument, we believe in the principle of “one bishop, one city.” Want to guess how many Orthodox bishops there are in New York?

Quote

... there are hundreds of thousands of Catholics today in Siberia. How come? Because the Russians dragged them there in cattle cars, that's how come. Let's say it the way it is. Furthermore, before the war, 20 percent of the population of Siberia was Catholic. Were there Catholics dioceses in Russia before the revolution wiped them out? Yes, there were. I mean real dioceses, not just fictitious apostolic administrations. Real dioceses. If there are Catholic bishops now in regions where there weren't before the revolution, it's for the reason I just gave – these people were dragged to those regions in cattle cars. The pope didn't drag them there.

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Dear Friends,

Fr. Taft's article is very interesting and insightful and not only because he is on the side of the UGCC.

He demonstrates the role of the Kyivan Church that goes well beyond the national borders of modern Ukraine - something the Russian Church has always recognized as well since it is the Metropolitan of Kyiv (in union with the MP, of course) who crowns each succeeding Patriarch of Moscow - as the Primate of the ancient See of Rus'.

There are those here who deny this role of the Kyivan Church and who see it merely as a modern, ethnic Church capital - I think the Administrator came close to saying this to me in a post prior to my canonical penancing in December, but perhaps he didn't mean to imply that.

As for Fr. Taft's "to hell with Moscow," he is lucky he's not a member of this Forum. I'm sure he'd be forbidden to post here for a while for his overt "anti-Russian" attitude and vicious, unecumenical attack!

Fr. Taft also succinctly summarizes the ONGOING attitude of Moscow's imperialism toward the Ukrainian Churches whose canonical territories it sees as its own backyard.

To want to oppose that, whether one is a member of the UGCC or not, is not being "anti-Russian" (and Fr. Taft is a Russian Catholic to boot). It is simply calling a spade a "shuflya."

Some of the best friends of the UGCC have been and are Russian Catholics and even Russian Orthodox who are not afraid of speaking up against the policies and attitudes of their own Church toward the UGCC.

While the MP is the second largest Church in the world, without Ukraine, its holding would be seriously delimited.

What Fr. Taft does not go into, and he didn't need to, was the way in which Moscow usurped the entire tradition of St Andrew and the primatial position of Kyiv as the underlying justification for its own Patriarchate.

While this should not stand in the way of Rome declaring a Kyivan Greek-Catholic Patriarch, Rome's primary objective is, and always was, Moscow and not Kyiv - thus a source of sensitivity and political complexity here.

What Fr. Taft also didn't touch on was the unfairness in which other Orthodox Patriarchates have been established in history - and the way the Kyivan Orthodox Patriarchate is currently treated by World Orthodoxy.

The UOC-KP is castigated as "uncanonical" for establishing its own patriarchate where Patriarch Filaret is villified by the Russian Orthodox press as no better than a layman in episcopal robes, completely without grace etc. etc. etc.

What is the difference between how the later Orthodox patriarchates were established and how the UOC-KP is attempting to establish itself?

What kind of a double standard is being applied here by world Orthodoxy?

And Rome is not being fair to the UGCC either.

If the UGCC still hangs on to Rome, it is really because, when it comes to ecclesial centres, Rome is the least of all evils.

But it is still, from our point of view, an evil - and this because it has shown itself willing to entertain unjust positions regarding the UGCC by the MP in hopes of arriving at a compromise of some sort within its policy of enduring "ostpolitik" and Orthodox ecumenism.

Rome would do better to focus on how "well" it is doing with its own Latin dioceses in Russia.

Its policy of denying Russian Byzantine Catholics their own ecclesial organization but promoting Latin dioceses as a way to keep from "offending the Orthodox" is simply "not on."

And the fact that our bishops keep being appointed by Rome - and are ALWAYS very loyal to it in every which way - will also ensure that the kind of unity we desire will also be kept out of our grasp.

This is a positive note - at least we know the lay of the land here!

Alex

I'm not ready to brand the Vatican as an "evil".
I think the choice of wording is unkind to the many within the Catholic Church who over the years have supported the UGCC, it's Patriarch, bishops, priests, and faithfull during some of the darkest years of it's existance.

I do believe that there are pro and anti-patriarchalists (UCGG) who are in either camp because they believe that either one to be the best route to mend the scism - that's all.

There are members of the Vatican curia who believe and support a Holy Russian Empire with an emperial church based in Moscow. Why not ? they have been indoctrinated over the centuries in believing this. I can't fault these individuals for trying to support the ROC because they believe this to be the best route for ecumism.

Look at the difference between Canada and the USA in terms of recognition of a Ukrainian nation. It took Canada 24 hours, and the USA months (after everyone else). But it should also be noted that it took the vast majority of the Warsaw pact countries (ie: Hungary, Poland, etc...) just a few days.

Why where there these significant time differences in time to recognize Ukraine's independance ? Answer: education. Ukrainians in Canada had made their cause for independance known. Furthermore, the elite nationalists of the x-Warsaw Pact countries understood perfectly well that without an independant Ukraine, there would not be freedom in all of Eastern Europe. The Germans and Italians understood well also. Most Americans on the other hand probably never heard of Ukraine or perhaps as a vague region of Russia.

Now what does this all have to do with the Church. Well after about a dozen years since the end of the Soviet Union, and an equal number of years of trying to form a true ecumenenical dialogue with the ROC, I'm confident that the scales have tipped in Ukraine's favour in regards to a patriarchate. Why ? answer: Catholics have become educated.

Here are a few peripheral events which probably have tipped the scale:

(1) The hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian immigrants to Western Europe are packing the UGCC and Orthodox churches. The ROC churches are pretty much empty. The Vatican insiders have noticed. At evey level possible, these immigrants are making the cause of a Ukrainian Patriarchate known. The Russians emigrees as a rule just don't care.

(2) The ROC behaved boorishly in regards to the Papal visit to Ukraine. Now compare this with the visit of the Pope to Greece where he was warmly welcomed inspite of past history that was, lets just say 'less than stellar' by the Catholics. Rome never sacked Moscow or kyiv but it did Constantinople. This very public display of distain is indicative of the maturity level of those at the 'helm' of the ROC.

(3) The Patriarch of the UGCC and the Patriarch of the 'scismatic' Ukrainian Orthodox Church are showing the nation and the world how well the can get along.

I pokazhem schto my bratjia
z kozatskoho rodu

Now compare this behaviour to that of the ROC which is distain and contempt for all non-ROC Chrisitans.

(4) Patriarch Lubomyr, our episcopate, and our religious communities have made known that only through Ukraine will Russia mend the scism. This message has been delivered by our Patriarch to the national convention of USA bishops, the elite of German society, etc... The education level in regards to our church has become understood.

If I were the Pope (and I'm not - I'm sitting here in my office, and my secretary is now gone) and I had a group of bishops telling me that any recognition of a Patriarchate for Ukraine-Rus would harm ecumenical dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church what do you think I would say ?

Probably answer; "well keep talking to the ROC hierarchy 'cause that good, but the Ukrainians (who seem to have most of the adherants) have a real plan and it seems to be working so let's give them a chance. It's no longe a situation of will the patriarchate be recognized, but how? and how quickly ?"

There is no evil in the Vatican, just differences of opinion which can be manifested in what appears to be anti-Ukrainianism.

Dear Hritzko,
If what you say is true than I believe that I can also say that: "There is no evil in Ukrainians, just differences of opinion which can be manifested in what appears to be anti-Vaticanism."
I know that there are nice people in the Vatican, but their "Polocies" stinks and being so, there is no evil in me just a difference of opinion.
Lauro

From EWTN: "Father Robert Taft-- an American Jesuit who has studied the Eastern churches for years-- said that it would be impossible for Cardinal Kasper to sway the Moscow patriarchate "and I don't think we should even try." Father Taft argued that the Vatican should recognize the Ukrainian patriarchate. "To hell with Moscow!" he said."

I found this an interesting 'ecumenical' attitude toward one's 'separated brethren' in Moscow? So much for the largest patriarchate in Orthodoxy! Some things about the Jesuits have changed drastically since Vatican II, while others apparently haven't changed one iota.

Kyrie Eleison!

In Him Who calls us,
+Father Archimandrite Gregory

Bless, Father Archimandrite!

Well, let me tell you what I think Fr. Taft REALLY meant . . .

Fr. Taft does hold the MP responsible for the "ecclesiacide" of the UGCC in 1946.

I don't know where he gets such an idea, but there you have it . . .

He feels that the largest Orthodox Patriarchate should make a formal apology for this act of ecclesial holocaust before any Catholic even ATTEMPT to want to have anything to do with it.

Yes, that offends ecumenical sensitivities, especially those of the Moscow Patriarchate which always has its arms held out wide open, ready to embrace Catholics and Ukrainian Catholics especially.

That someone, like Fr. Taft, would even make such accusations against the Russian Orthodox Church is beyond all telling.

I'm surprised that all mention of Fr. Taft hasn't already been censured on this board as yet . . .

Who does he really think he is, after all, attacking an innocent (and so large) a Church as the Moscow Patriarchate?

Disgusting . . .

Alex

Dear Hritzko,

I think that Vatican politics has been guilty of evil in the past.

And they can be guilty of evil today.

Ultimately, while a UGCC Patriarchate will probably never be acknowledged by Rome, conditions and situations notwithstanding, the Vatican is not above using this matter in its political dealings with Moscow.

As to whether who is right here - time alone will tell.

So, Hritzko, please be patient . . .

Alex

Dear Alex,
I beg to disagree. Not only do I think that the Vatican will eventually recognize the Ukrainian Patriarchate; I predict that the document by which the Vatican announces this will begin with the words "as the Church has always taught . .."
Incognitus

I agree with Incognitus, however, I do believe that there is a strong possibility that this will happen in two phases:

(1) UGCC begins recognizing itself as a Patriarchate

(2) Rome acknowledges the Patriarchate and begins treating it like one.

If the presidential elections in Ukraine are positive at the end of the year, the gap time between 1 and 2 will be minimal.

Father Taft's choice of wording was meant to draw immediate and widespread attention to the issue (ie: you didn't have to read between the lines to get the message). It was not meant to insult the people of Russia.

There is a saint in the Vatican known as JP2 who is making the Kyivan Patriarchate a reality. There are others who are less encouranging of this happening, but I refuse to call them evil.

You know all of this really worries me. Let's say that a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Patriarchate is finally recognized. What do we do next? I mean what are we going to fight for? We've been fighting for centuries.
Lauro

Dear Incognitus,

Other than just plain Ukrainian wishful thinking and the view that the Vatican really does want what's best for the UGCC ( . . .yawnn!), do you have any objectively credible criteria for your view that Rome will acknowledge the UGCC patriarchate?

Something that goes beyond the above?

And quoting Hritzko's posts here doesn't count!

Anything at all - I've worked in the patriarchal movement for a number of years.

And I've seen many become disillusioned.

Perhaps it's just time to accept reality?

Alex

Dear Hritzko,

The Pope is definitely a friend to the UGCC.

But if he gets on the train that says "UGCC," he most definitely gets off at the station that says "Poland's views."

And those views include what is thought by our Catholic neighbour about Met. Andrew Sheptytsky and other things.

The fate of all this is bound up not with the Pope, but with Cardinal Kasper.

Rome wants to hang on to both the UGCC and to Moscow - hoping it will bring Moscow over.

Again, time will tell.

I'm older than you and not quite so naive as Incognitus .

(Hopefully, I'm not joking with one of our hierarchs or clergymen - if I am, too bad . . . ).

Our Diak once bitterly condemned my pessimism in this regard.

But not any longer.

Alex

Dear Lauro,

That is one of the reasons why I think the Vatican won't recognize the UGCC Patriarchate.

I think it was Hritzko that said that our bishops will start to act as if they already are a patriarchate.

That too would be great - but we'll have to see it before too many of us will believe it.

And simply having Basilians commemorate the "Patriarch" in the liturgy is simply not enough.

Alex

Dear All:

This topic was touched upon by Fr. Taft and in the posts, but I would like to throw my two cents into the ring and say that the declaration of a Patriarchate must inherently do away with the nonsence about "traditional testitorries."

In other words, our UGCC bishops in the diaspora must be appointed by the Patriarch and the Synod and not by Rome.

Alex, is (as always) right when he says that the bishops appointed by Rome to posts in the diaspora are oftentimes more big-c Catholic than the Pope himself and would never defy Rome.

On the other hand (and I will call a spade a spade here), views held by bishops such as Met. Sulyk ("Lisovyj Chort" ) and Bishop Paska are, IMHO, being supplanted by a generation of bishops more in tune with who they are and from where their cannonical tradition comes from.

The current Bishop of Saskatoon might need some convincing, though.

Yours,

hal