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

Here is the link to Fr Robert Taft, SJ's interview with John Allen of NCR, on formal recognition of Patriarch LUBOMYR:

http://natcath.org/mainpage/taft.htm

Here's a great quote from the interview:

"I told them, take two steps. First, publicly declare the patriarchate. Second, request Roman recognition, but even if it doesn�t come, refuse all mail that doesn�t come addressed to the patriarchate. Don�t just pretend, but really do it. The Secretary of State sends a letter addressed to the archbishop? We don�t have any archbishop, we�ve got a patriarch. Send it back unopened, �addressee unknown.� "

I didn't know Fr Taft had seen that old movie (name escapes me)-- "Archbishop, we don't got no stinkin' archbishop".

V. Viva Patriarch LUBOMYR!
R. Viva!

Archimandrite Taft for Patriarch! He seems to understand it better and want it more than much of the UGCC hiearchy.

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
This article is one of the reasons that I love Archimandrite Taft. I have also had the pleasure of meeting him at the Russicum.

Poosh BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

Amen! Amen to Archmandrite Taft.
To respect Rome as having the Petrine Primacy and all of that I am in agreement.
But like he says just "do it".
Name the Patriarch and also ordain the married men.
Just do it (it is your right as a sui juris Church) and stop whinning.
Stephanos I

That interview is delightful, and will also prove helpful in a major way. But Stephanos I used a word with which I am not familiar: "whinning". Does he perhaps mean "whinnying", as in horses?
Incognitus

This interview was given to the press for a reason. As Alex states, the Vatican curia has it's proverbial back in a 'two way corner' and finds it difficult from an overall global ecumenical strategy point of view to announce a Patriarchate for Ukraine. Therefore, if the Ukrainians want it they should just announce it, insist on it, and before you know it - just like the Bulgarians - it will be 'the way things are' (ie: a fait accomplit). There will be very little or probably no resistance from the Vatican.

In fact, my belief is that the EU and MP are being advised of the announcement now and that is what all the screaming is about. The UGCC Patriarchate will be announced before the end of this year - probably by summer.

What the interview does best is it exposes the sham called the Russian (Muscovite) Orthodox Church in Ukraine, Russia, and abroad. It further supports the assesment that the UGCC and UO-KP are the true churches with adherents and the legitimate heirs to a millennium old tradition of Christianity in Ukraine.

Fr Robert goes out of his way to question the need for ROC Metropolitans in European urban centers such Brussels (international point of entry) and Vienna (traditional Eastern European point of entry) where there are practically no adherants. Brussels and Vienna are two of Europes best known centers of organized crime.

He further questions the need for a ROC parish in Palermo, Italy where according to him "you could put all of the adherants in a telephone booth". Well Helllooooo ! Yoooo Hooooo ! Palermo is the organized crime capital of Italy, and some believe the world. You know where the mafia controls, drugs, prostitution, murder for hire, kidnapping, extortion, etc... And here the ROC decides to errect a parish.

Fr Robert also exposes the mith of a larger ROC in Eastern Ukraine than the UGCC and UO-KP combined. There is no ROC in Eastern Ukraine, just a bunch of numbers being crunched by the ROC. In fact he calls Eastern Christian statistics an "oxymoron".

Fr Robert also metions the fact that the ROC has received most of it's priests from Western Ukraine "and for one reason or another they did not convert back to Catholism from Orthodoxy". Ahhh - the 'sleaper' theory may infact be much more factual than many wanted to believe. Just as it was in Western Ukraine, it shall be the same in the East when the time is right.

Sorry Incognitus
Since learning so many languages my former ability to spell perfectly went out the window.
It should have been whining.
From whine. ME whinen OE hwinan akin to ON hwina from the root language of Indo European kwei to whiz or to hish, whistle, whisper.

1. to utter a high pitched somewhat nasal sound, as in complaint, distress or fear.
2. to complain or beg in a childishly undiginified way, as with a whine.

Stephanos I

Dear Hritzko, I have far too many times since before and after the Pope's visit to Ukraine heard these optimistic comments like yours amongst the UGCC laity that the Patriarchate is right around the corner. All of them have vaporized in the midst of official Rome/MP dialogue.

While I am 1000% in agreement with Fr. Taft in this article, I don't believe any imminent proclamation of a UGCC patriarchate is in the works at all.

Unless the UGCC hierarchy takes the initiative of the Melkites, and before them of the Romanian and Bulgarian Orthodox, it will not happen. There are bishops in the diaspora who are actually opposed to this. And since Lubomyr has never called himself Patriarch, or admitted as much, is he really?

Greetings all,

I know that the Patriarchate is a matter of deep concern to the people of Ukraine, who call for it so diligently. For that I extend my prayers and best wishes.

I feel that naming the Patriarch for Ukrainians is far too limiting.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the Patriarchate to cover an area larger than Ukraine? I would think it should be the Patriarchate for Belarus as well, at a minimum. If the Patriarchate was also coextensive with Belarus, Lithuania and Poland for those of the Byzantine rite we would see the beginning of a proper church stucture in the region to administer the needs of the faithful in those places, and it would lend an additional legitimacy to the Patriarchate by restoring to it much more of the original administrative responsibility of the Metropolitan of Kyiv.

Just my simple-minded thoughts.

Michael

Michael, I personally think a Patriarchate should be a unifying force for all Slavic Greek Catholics, both at home and in the diaspora.

There are far too many small Greek Catholic churches sui iuris that are hand and foot directly dependent on Rome. The Metropolitans of Kyiv were able to effect widespread support and communion outside what are now the territorial boundaries of Ukraine.

One Patriarchate would not imply one ethnically but would embrace many diverse liturgical and linguistic usages. The Russian Catholic Church under Metropolitan Andrew and Exarch Leonid of blessed memory was able to keep harmony and unity between the Old and New (Nikonian) Rites.

This is quite bold, but I would propose establishing only two Greek Catholic patriarchates, the Melkites already established being the one for all churches of the Greek liturgical usage, and the Patriarchate of Kyiv for all those of Slavic liturgical usage, be it Ukrainian, "Ruthenian", Bulgarian, Macedonian, etc. worldwide. Exarchates would be established for all of these other liturgical usages, but all united under a Patriarch and not subject to a Roman dicastery.

There is strength in numbers and joining resources. We have often worked in different directions. Look at the US. One seminary with half a dozen seminarians (Pittsburgh). Another in Washington, D.C. that is currently empty. Why not one? One faculty, one set of expenses, one combined effort? Because everyone wants to protect their little piece of ecclesial turf. This shortsidedness needs to be abandoned for a larger, more organized, and more unified Greek Catholic communion. But surely I dream.

God bless Fr. Taft! I love his pungent style (but then I've been accused of an over-fondness for polemics).

As interesting as Diak's proposal is, it opens an entire thicket of other questions and is therefore not a simple solution at all. The principle of geographical limitation to patriarchal territory, as Rome likes to remind us, was an Eastern principle and so was inserted into the CCEO. We have tied our own hands!

However, we can untie them but not until and unless we sort out the larger question of jurisdiction, which remains of course THE issue in both intra-Catholic relations and Catholic-Orthodox relations. Perhaps we might begin by sorting out the question of Rome as a patriarchate and go from there.

For a fascinating and lengthy exploration of this entire question, I commend readers to the recent issue of *The Jurist* (canon law journal published by CUA)

You are correct, Adam. That would open up all kinds of complications. But certainly not more complicated than the scattered and divided sui iuris welfare state dependent on Rome we have now?

I don't know about you but if I'm speaking French or Ukrainian on the phone, and typing in English on my PC - it's amazing to see the variety of spelling and grammar errors.

Dear Diak,

The UGCC is becoming a Patriarchate in two phases;

Phase one; the church will begin acting like a Patriarchate, including giving our Kyr Lubomyr the new title. I'm convinced that our church has made this decision, and feels it is imperative that they act on it before the general government elections this fall in Ukraine. The Vatican has been notified of this date and is now in the process of giving notice to the MP and EU.

Phase two: (will occur after the elections) the Patriarchate will be defacto accepted (notice I did not say approved) by the Vatican. The Vatican will simply say: "the Ukrainian government wants it this way and who are we to argue with an democratic president of an independant nation".

There will be no support, but more importantly no resistance from president Kuchma of Ukraine for the UGCC Patriarchate.

I'm not sure which bishops you mean when you say "that not all of them support the Patriarchate". From my understading, they all voted in favor of Patriarchate last year and let the Vatican know it. There have been no official changes since.

I had the opportunity of participating in Uke (SUM) summer camps in the U.K. a generation ago. The fallout from the 'Horniak affair' was devasting to the community. The vast majority of our UGCC members moved over to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The 'Danylak affair'in Toronto was not quite as devastating, but it did leave a nasty scar on our church. The Ukes in Halychana are far more militant than either of these two communities. "They aint gonna put up with much more delaying". For example; if the bishop of 'France and the Benelux' decides that he can't support a unilateral declaration; then it's bye bye Kyr, or if need be, so long to the whole exarcate. The bishops know it, and so does the Vatican.

Please tell me who these anti-patriarchal bishops are (in private if you feel more at ease).

First and foremost, the Ukrainians want to be 'masters in their own home', which is the present territory of modern Ukraine. Poland of course has a UGCC Metropolitan but Bielorus is far more problematic, but not impossible in the long term.

For example, Patriarch Filaret has provided the Bielorus community in the far northern part of the Ukraine with a few churches. Services are being held in their native language, Bielorus, something the current president of that country would never permit because he is more of a russophile than Putin of Russia himself. You can be sure that these positive reformations are being heard back home in Bielorus.

There are other happenings which are occuring ON UKRAINIAN TERRITORY with the aim of re-establishing both a Bielorus Greek Catholic Church and a Bielorus Orthodox Church, but due to the highly volatile nature of their current president, these projects are kept quiet for the moment.