Dear Robert K.,

Thank you for your analysis (have you joined the Eastern Catholic Church yet? ).

It was Patriarch Josef himself who crossed swords with the same Rome for which he spent so many years in Siberia over this question.

Loyalty to Rome is not in question. Vatican Ostpolitik was. And as long as no one declared that policy to be an "ex cathedra" point of faith, then one could and should oppose it, even as a loyal Catholic.

I don't believe that to be a loyal Catholic one cannot criticize Vatican policy, especially on this point, which you have done at the end of your post as well.

St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine outlined several instances when Catholics are OBLIGATED to oppose even the Pope himself, such as if he should wish to destroy the Church etc.

Alex

Anastasios -

I strongly second. This is a point of view I have believed in, written about, discussed, and pray for. This is so true! If you think about it, terms like Eastern and Western are archaic too, since there is no longer a point of reference in the modern world. From a historical perpsective, the terms are useful but in reality no. If I moved to Japan, eastern christianity is actually west of my point of reference. With mass migration and the ease of travel, borders and territory is an outdated way of viewing one's ecclesiology and jurisdiction. The Roman Church understands this for herself, but is reluctant to "grant" this right to other Catholic churches in union with her. I was thinking about this as I mowed the lawn this morning!

Christ is Risen!
/
Holy Lent

Ality

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: Ality ]

Dear Ality,

When you mowed the lawn?

Congratulations! As you know, the issues of Christ's Natures, the Theotokos and many others were often discussed by the laity in the market place, when they fished etc.

Even fist-fights broke out over these matters . . .

Spiritual topics with an added punch?

Alex

Yes,

And I gave that lawn a good thrashing!

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: Ality ]

Dear Friends,

As I told our brother, RichC, earlier, I wrote to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Chancery in Lviv about this matter and this is the reply I received:

"The Ukrainian synod of bishops together with the head of the UGCC (i.e. His Beatitude Lubomyr Husar) can make episcopal appointments within the territory of Ukraine (see Canon 181, Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, CCEO), which our bishops accepted as the general law for their Church.

As for bishops outside of Ukraine, the Pope has reserved this right to himself and to his Curia (see canon 181.2, CCEO).

However, our bishops can have a say in the appointment of bishops outside by suggesting three candidates to the Pope (see canon 149, CCEO).

The Pope (or more likely the Congregation for the Eastern Churches) may choose one of the three suggested candidates OR (italics mine) one of his own preference.

All episcopal candidates for offices WITHIN UKRAINE OR OUTSIDE (italics by you know who ) must first have the approval of the Roman Pontiff before their election by the synod can be realized (canons 183-185 CCEO).

Some Eastern Catholic Patriarchs protested at the time of the Second Vatican Council when the Council Fathers approved the document on the Eastern Churches - Orientalium Ecclesiarum (OE) in 1964. This decree basically made it clear that Eastern patriarchs have a great deal of authority within the territory of their own churches, but not outsides that territory (OE 7).

Some Eastern bishops and other participants protested the wording of some of the canons before the CCEO was promulgated in 1990. But the overwhelming majority did approve of the texts (see Nuntia 30, p. 88)."

So the Pope or the Eastern Congregation may, according to this, TOTALLY IGNORE the Synod's three proposed candidates.

And it is clear the Pope or the EC may even veto someone appointed by the Major Archbishop/Patriarch and his synod ON HIS OWN TERRITORY as well.

So, we're back to the original question: What good is a Major Archbishop?

Alex

[ 04-22-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Dear Alex,

Thanks for the update.

Indeed, that is the question, what good is a major archbishop?

The reply and conclusions above didn't really surprise me. On the surface, I thought a major archbishop was a step in the right direction for an Eastern Catholic Church. But the doubts which initially led me to start this thread have been confirmed. It seems to me that a major archbishop *may* have more power than a regular old metropolitan archbishop, but not by much.

In fact, the quoted section above seems remarkably similar to how bishops are chosen in the Latin Church; in other words, it seems like a Latin policy which this particular Church accepts and uses as its own, for its own reasons.

Surely something like this puts the whole "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" movement back a number of years, does it not? How can you be "Orthodox" jurisdiction-wise, when you don't even have that much power to begin with, and you're basically being run by Big Brother? I'm sorry to put it this way, but is a major archbishop nothing more than a "puppet patriarch"?

Please everyone don't be offended by what I've said. I'm just telling you how things look to me. Those of you who know me know that I have the greatest respect for the Catholic Churches, East and West (heck, I might join you one day, only God knows). But this situation doesn't seem to offer one much in the way of hope for your recognition as "Churches" and not just as "Rites" of the Roman Catholic Church, or so it seems to me.

Mor Ephrem,

Let me raise again the topic I raised elsewhere. I understand that Byzantine Catholics have every right to discuss the internal working of their particular church and methods they think best serve their needs.

But I get the impression that some of the discussion is that "if we are to be Orthodox, we should do X".

I wnat to again raise the point, we Orthodox try to look with interest and with an open mind your concept of papacy. We see some value in some understandings of papacy and would like to keep the discussion going.

In turn, we hope that Catholics look with interest and with an open mind on our concept of conciliarity. We hope you see some value in some understandings of counciliarity and would like to keep the discussion going.

However, our point to Catholics is not to apply counciliarity to 2% of your church. Our hope is that Catholic-Orthodox dialogue would lead you to see the universal value of councilarity. Do you see what I mean?

Axios

Dear Axios,

Click on your profile, I just sent a reply to you via private message.

Dear Catholicos,

Yes, it does seem to set back the union with Rome movement a few years - to 1596 .

We have some real good bishops who can be programmed and trained by us good Ukie Cath'lics, no matter who appoints them.

We're working on them to ordain more married men as priests.

Wherever such bishops are trained, and irrespective of who appoints them, they all are extremely sensitive to one thing - their pocketbook.

Laity can be very powerful, once they've discovered a bishop's Achilles heal you know . . .

Alex

Khrystos Voskres!

What "good" is a Major Archbishop?
There is a fine line between the title Major Archbishop and Patriarch.
Patriarch Josyf had the wisdom, forsight, courage to title himself Patriarch. Cardinal Lubachivsky did not ascribe that title to himself. Cardinal Husar, at least to the extent that I see, doesn't tend to title himself Patriarch.

I think that the 'problem' and 'blame' for the UGCC not having a Patriarch lies squarely with (some)of our Bishops and laity in general.

We had a golden opportunity with Patriarch Slipyj. Had all the Bishops and clergy and faithful closed ranks and gave him the wholehearted support, we, in my opinion, today would have had a patriarch. However, egos and politics got in the way. There are too many personal agendas. So we shouldn't blame Rome particularly for today's situation, appointing bishops and all, or the wording of the Eastern Code. If we act like a Church with a patriarch, we would be treated like a church with a patriarch.
However, Ukrainian history is dotted with countless examples of disharmony, politicizing, criticizing and tearing down. We have no one but ourselves to blame for this situation. When we come 'of age', then the future will be brighter. Until such time ......

On one of the previous posts, someone had outlined the desireable characteristics of a metropolitan, or bishop or a leader in the church. These personal characteristics are great. But what the writer failed to mention in the same breath, is that somehow we expect all these great qualities in our church leaders, but we fail to acknowledge that the laity must foster similar characteristics of loyalty and leadership and support.

Deacon Yurij

Bless me with a hug, Deacon Yurij!

Yes, the Vatican didn't have the gumption to tell Patriarch Josef itself that he couldn't have his Patriarchate - so they sent Ukrainian Basilians to do their (dirty) work for them - which they did.

The thing is that there are Eastern Catholic Churches with a small fraction of the membership the Ukrainian Catholic Church has, and they have Patriarchates and we don't.

Ostpolitik is what ultimately got in the way. Husar simply wants the Vatican to own up to its previous failures, make good on them and officially recognize the Patriarchate.

It may get a bit cold in hell before that heppens, however.

Alex

So, we're back to the original question: What good is a Major Archbishop?

Not worth the powder to blow it to hell.

It is really all one big racket!

ALity