VATICAN CITY, APR 5, 2002 (VIS) - The Holy Father:

- Appointed Fr. Paul Patrick Chomnycky O.S.B.M., superior of the Monastery of St. Basil in Edmonton, Canada, as apostolic exarch for the Ukrainian faithful of the Byzantine rite resident in Great Britain (Catholics 15,000, priests 15, religious 7). The apostolic exarch-elect was born in Van Couver, British Columbia, in 1954 and ordained a priest 1988. The Holy Father also accepted the resignation from the pastoral care of the same apostolic exarcate presented by Bishop Michael Kuchmiak in accordance with canon 210, para. 1 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. - Appointed Fr. David Motiuk as auxiliary bishop of the archieparchy of the Ukrainian faithful of Winnipeg (Catholics 13,500, priests 43, permanent deacons 19, religious 45), Canada. The bishop-elect was born in Vegreville, Canada, in 1954 and was ordained a priest in 1988.

*********************

I don't mean to stir the pot anymore than it probably will be stirred :p , but I thought that since the Ukrainian Church was under a Major Archbishop, they didn't have to have their bishops appointed by Rome, but instead elect them on their own. So what's the story?

Dear Catholicos,

The story is that probably some weeks from now our parishes will get a bulletin directing us to disregard that stuff about the Pope appointing those bishops, and that it was really the Ukrainian Synod in L'viv that did it.

Or perhaps we'll be told that since our Patriarchal Synod is so incompetent and useless, Rome simply HAD to step in and save us from ourselves by making these appointments.

On the other hand, these episcopal candidates are Basilians, and they do consider themselves to be under the Pope's jurisdiction directly.

They probably would not have obeyed the Synod even if it appointed them bishops directly.

So much for the "Particular" Ukrainian Catholic Church and her rights.

"Major Archbishop" has been translated into a "Patriarch." But when you see things like these, I prefer major anything to the latter title.

Alex

[ 04-05-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[ 04-05-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

In the Eastern Catholic canon law, synods (patriarchal and otherwise) only have jurisdiction in their "home territories." Since western Europe, North & South America, and Australia are not the "home territory" of the Ukrainian Church, the Synod of Bishops cannot appoint hierarchs there. The Holy Father does this.

Dear RichC,

If that is so, then why was our present Bishop said to have been appointed directly by the Synod in Ukraine? And others as well?

Our Synod has the right to appoint bishops anywhere, or so we are being told.

And if the Patriarch's jurisdiction is so limited, why do we commemorate him? Is he only the Patriarch in Galicia?

I am going to contact the administration in L'viv right now and ask them for their take on this, as well as whether they believe the Patriarch can appoint bishops outside of Ukraine.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But then, our clergy here shouldn't be telling us the Synod is appointing our bishops outside of Ukraine when it doesn't have the powers to.

Alex

[ 04-05-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[ 04-05-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RichC:
[QB]In the Eastern Catholic canon law, synods (patriarchal and otherwise) only have jurisdiction in their "home territories." Since western Europe, North & South America, and Australia are not the "home territory" of the Ukrainian Church, the Synod of Bishops cannot appoint hierarchs there. The

That is something that drives me nuts. For instance, the Syro Malabars have jurisdiction ONLY in South India--their bishops in the North are auxiliaries to the Latin Archbishops, when the Syro-Malabars have been in India for 1000 years more than the Latins! Sheesh! To me, that's like making the Bishop of Cordoba Spain an auxiliary of the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch!!

anastasios

This has something to do with the discussion about "canonical territory" that claims the ROC. I once heard that the Russian Church made a proposition (specially now, when the Romanian Patriarchate established dioceses in Moldova, and the Roman Catholic Church did the same in Russia), he said that every cannonical church has jurisdiction in its patriarchal territory but if they want to establish a diocese in a different patriarchate they must ask the other church to accept this. But what happens in the West (countires withou patriarchal territories)?
But if the Eastern Catholic Churches were really autonomous, they would be able to establish dioceses for their faithful outside their homeland (I thought that the Ukrainian Catholic Church is for all Ukrainian catholics, not only in Ukraine).

Friends,

Outside the "territory" of patriarchal/major archepiscopal churches, the synod selects three candidates that are forwarded through the patriarch/major archbishop to Rome for appointment by the Pope.

The eparchies of these Churches that are outside the territory are immediately subject to Rome but do not lose their membership in that Church. Their bishops are members of the synod and all liturgical laws enacted by the synod have force. The patriarch may conduct visitations and provides their chrism and ordinations (usually).

This whole outside the territory being immediately subject to Rome thing seems to revolve soley around the married priesthood and the Latin Church's semming need to control that aspect of our lives in places where they are the majority and we are the minority, for outside of that issue Rome lets us do our own thing as far as I can see.

Dustin,

The Syro Malabars do have regular eparchies in Northern India but they are outside the "territory" so they are assigned a designated Latin metropolitan, but they are regular bishops with eparchies not just auxiliaries. This is also the case for all Eastern eparchies that are not part of a province. Refer to Canon 139 of the CCEO

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Ask the Bishops themselves.



Just read respective canons of CCEO.
Our Synod can only propose a list "of at least
three candidates" for episcopal sees "outside
our proper territory".
BTW, the ancient see of Peremyshl (Przemysl in
Poland) which dates back to the eleventh century
is treated like other sees "outside the territory".



His real powers are confined to the territory of
Ukrainian State. However, the CCEO requires all
UGCC's clerics to commemorate him during the services - all around the world.



Tell us what their answer is.



I am afraid you are.



Yes, the Truth liberates, as St. Paul says. But
haven't you ever heard mere propaganda from the
mouths of our clergymen?

Sincerely,
Reader Peter (absolutely NOT surprised)

We Ukrainian love to get illusioned by ourselves.



The observation about Basilians is generally true.
However, isn't Fr. David Motiuk an eparchial priest?



You should rather say: Particular Ukrainian
Catholic "Church". "Particular" (not universal)
we truly are, in both senses (a piece of a whole
and a being unable to think, feel and act "universally" instead of being interested in
our own ghetto only).



Welcome to the realists' club.
Personally I insist that in order to be named
"Patriarch" one must be ready to sign himself as "Patriarch" and, more generally, act as Patriarch.
His Beatitude Joseph had the courage to do this, so he can be named "Patriarch". You may add the rest yourself...

Sincerely,
Reader Peter

From a standpoint of theology and tradition, I will be the first to admit that Orthodoxy has no particular method of the selection of bishops.

However, from a practical standpoint, I think recent events has shown how disasterous the current Catholic practice is.

I find it shocking that the Catholic bishop of Palm Beach who recently resigned was a child abuser and that his diocese paid a considerable cash settlement to the victim and this somehow escaped the attention of those who made him bishop of Palm Beach.

Clearly, these episcopal selections are being made by a narrow and non-consultative clique. The laity, priesthood, and others need to have sodme FORMAL role in the election of bishops. Otherwise these scandals will continue.

Axios

Christ is Risen!

Dear Peter,

It seems to me that all the Greek Catholics, regardless of nationality, need to rally together to choose by synod, vote, or acclamation, a Patriarch recognized by all Greek Catholics descended from Sts. Cyril and Methodius. Cardinal Lubomyr Husar is Patriarch in Ukraine, but has only moral authority elsewhere. He has said he would serve as Bishop to a Kyivan Patriarch who was in communion with Rome. We, outside of Ukraine, have to begin acting like we are the same Church, not Roman, not Orthodox, not nationalist, just Christian and just us.

Congratulations on the birth of baby Julia. I see you named her after my Mother's favorite aunt. May she be blessed with many years of peace and good health.

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches:

Chapter 1: The Roman Pontiff

CAN. 43

The Bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office (munus) given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted by his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and pastor of the entire Church on earth. By virtue of his office (munus) he possesses supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he is always able to exercise freely.

Webster's Collegiate Dicitonary

Ordinary

1. A prelate exercising original jurisdiction over a specified territory or group.

2. Having or constituting immediate or original jurisdiction; also: belonging to such jursdiction.

Remember that the COCEC was written by the Roman Church. Until the second Vatican Council, Eastern Catholic Churches were an excentric, perhaps heretical, rite within the Roman Catholic Church and directly under the authority of the Pope.

Do you really think that the Roman Catholic Church could give up her "Colonial" mentality in just a 1/2 century?

The Pope is in Charge and everything else is just a public spectacle to persuade the Orthoox into Communion with Rome. (I don't think they are buying into it ). The Ukrainian Church had to get permission to establish The Exarchate in Kharkiv. Are our Hierarchs pleased? Many are not. But we have to remember that we are in the midst of a giant political machine that cannot be overcome at once.

On the positive side, the Roman Catholic Church did give us a seperate Canon Law and it IS
a start. We have only been a free church for 10 years. We will act as a truly Universal Church with our own authority. We also need to be patient. Some of our hierarchs are pro-Roman while others are not. I could discuss this issue forever. Ultimately, we can change this by being informed members of our community and cordially challenging our bishops to act as hierarchs with real authority. Remember that currently, most of our Bishops are in their 60's, which put them in a pre-Vatican II viewpoint of our church, Her identity, and relation to Her sister churches.

Also, even though our Church does not appoint the Bishops outside of our "traditional" territory (And Peremyshl is currently considered outside of our traditional territory ), they are taking a more active role and are working to establish that right for our synod and future Patriarch.

So, Alex, in many ways we do not appoint our bishops, but we do have, and will continue to HAVE an ever incresing role in that process. Ultimately, we will be the decision makers for our church, not Rome. The reason that we do not go ahead with the "damn the torpedoes" mentality is because according to CAN 43, above, we do not have that authority. Simply put, if we could we would, but we can't, so we don't. I am not an insider so I do not know the how and why. The reality is just that we can't do it . . . yet. But we will.

If for whatever reasons we are not able to do so politically in the future, one question may be brought up:

Being that Ukraine is a free and secure state, will the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, decide that the conditions for unity with the Roman Church, i.e. territorial control by a foreign and Roman Catholic power/state (Poland/Lithuainia) are no longer relevant and decide to leave Communion with the Roman Catholic hierarch, and reunite with their Orthodox brethren in Ukraine under a Kyivan Patriarchate in canonical union with Constantinople?

I officially give no personal answer to this question, neither supporting nor endorsing any, or all sides.

In Christ,
Ality

Lviv Theological Academy conference on Ukrainian Catholic Canon Law

Being that Ukraine is a free and secure state, will the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, decide that the conditions for unity with the Roman Church, i.e. territorial control by a foreign and Roman Catholic power/state (Poland/Lithuainia) are no longer relevant and decide to leave Communion with the Roman Catholic hierarch, and reunite with their Orthodox brethren in Ukraine under a Kyivan Patriarchate in canonical union with Constantinople?

I officially give no personal answer to this question, neither supporting nor endorsing any, or all sides.

In Christ,
Ality

From a truly universal Catholic perspective, what on Earth is wrong with the Greek Catholic Church being under Romes authority? Are Eastern Catholics better then the rest of the Catholic Church in having some special need to be completely self governing?

Why on earth would anyone who is in the Catholic Church want not to be under the Pope anyway? After all, the Orthodox are already in a sort of communion with Rome already for as much as individual Orthodox may recieve the sacrements in Catholic Churches.

But, from a C P, the thing that makes Eastern Catholics not only unique but special is the fact that they are not just connected to the Catholic fold by some hazy ecumenical tye union of "Im okay, your okay" but are a living, breathing,part of that Church working with all the other rights for the salvation of mankind. This is whats is important (From a C P) The religion, the right is secondary (But still extremely important as well as necessary).

It would be wrong for tthe Ukrainian people to abandone the Church of the apostles and martyrs (again C P) soly for a nationalisitc "I want to be on my own because I just do" mentality. This is the sin of pride which, if you recall, is rather serious.

Robert K.

Filed this in the wrong part of the forum. Forgive me.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

[ 04-06-2002: Message edited by: Thomas ]

Ality,
Which of our bishops are pro- Roman and which are not?
-ukrainiancatholic

Dear Ukrainian Catholic!

Christ is Risen!

I am always delighted when there are lively debates, and a challenging exchange of ideas and opinions. All opinions are most welcome, and I do enjoy when people present different points of view and defend their position with enthusiasm.

I am less happy with the "naming of names", or when issues become personal. Perhaps the question you raise, borders on this?

All our bishops need our support and respect, especially in trying times (I can remember none more trying than right now!). They are endowed with a great episcopal dignity, and also have an awesome responsibility. Let us remember them in our prayers, at this time, that God will help and strengthen them for the duties that they must undertake.

I hope I can thank you for considering your question again?

Elias

Dear Monk Elias,
You are right. I should have worded it as " How do the pro-Roman Bishops feel on this issue and how do the ones that are not stand?"
-uc

Ukr Catholic -

I think this is a rhetorical quetion . . .
Fill in the blanks

Ality

Going back to the original question, in Orthodoxy, a Major Archbishop does not have the authority to appoint bishops outside his home territory as well.

Axios

But does a Patriarch?

If yes, it is not right for us to say that a Major Archbishop is the same as a Patriarch except in order of honor. There would be real differences in how authority is exercised, especially with the UGCC abroad.

Ality

Dear Friends,

The things you miss when you are away for a day . . . .

First of all, thanks to Piotr for his comments on my thinking out loud.

Again, I don't know these things, I'm not an insider and only know what I, like other laity, am told.

Other lay friends of mine were also quite surprised about the two papal appointments. They too were under the impression, as we have been told, that the Synod "does bishops."

Our dear friend, Robert K., I am afraid, is confusing nationalism with Particular Church government, and the two are entirely different.

I won't deny that Ukrainians and others, such as the Russians, the Poles etc. etc. are VERY nationalistic. But this is no different than American Catholics thinking that the world is as cosmopolitan as they are and so are also ethnocentric.

RC commentators on the East have noted that the Eastern Churches have become expressions of the peoples' entire national culture, especially in the wake of their years of colonial oppression and repression under various regimes, e.g. Turks, Arabs and others.

That the "Unia" has sorely divided Ukraine throughout its history is a well attested fact, recognized by RC theologians as well, and by the New Catholic Encyclopedia under the discussion on the Union of Brest-Litovsk.

And I thought that we are "in union with" Rome not "under" Rome.

We have the Rite to govern ourselves as Vatican II acknowledged.

That Rome continues to, jurisdictionally, exercise control over our Church in this way for various and ill-advised reasons speaks ill for the ecumenical way with respect to other Churches.

The point that was raised regarding the union of ALL the Kyivan Churches into ONE Kyivan Patriarchate (of necessity Orthodox) would be a positive thing, period.

Forgive me, but well-meaning outsiders (outside the Ukrainian community that is) have no idea what such religious division continues to mean for us.

Families are divided, such as mine is. If one wants to marry someone who is Orthodox, there is a kerfuffle. Ukrainian Catholics often have better relationships with Protestants and agnostics than they do with Ukrainian Orthodox etc.

The Union has meant pain and division for us that continues.

A resolution in the form of a reunification, whether Catholic or Orthodox, would be great.

Again, we should not think in North American terms where there is a separation between church and state.

In Europe, especially Eastern Europe, there generally wasn't and isn't.

Alex

Yes. The Albanian Major Archbishop Anastas is the head of an autocephalous church, but all the Albanian paruishes outside Albania are under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, because he cannot create dioceses outside his territory and this right is reserved to Patriarchal Churches.
The Catholic Patriarchal Churches (chaldean, maronite) don't seem to have trouble with this, when they want to establish an eparchy for their faithful in the Diaspora, they just apoint a bishop and Rome approves him.

Dear Remie,

Yes, and you bring up an interesting point of comparison between Major Archbishops and Patriarchs in the Catholic Church.

Vatican II emphatically stated that the two positions, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, are equal in terms of their powers.

So even if Rome doesn't with to acknowledge the Patriarchal status of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, it has acknowledged its status as a Major Archiepiscopate. And that means that the powers are the same.

Alex

In theory, yes.

Whether this is how things actually get done in practice or not is another story.

Dear Catholicos,

You and I obviously talk to the same people, and read the same press releases . . .

How are you doing, Friend?

Alex

The Malabarese Church is also a Mayor Church and its situation is even worse (about lack of autonomy) than the byzantine catholic churches.

Lance,

Sorry, i miswrote there. Yes, they have regular eparchies, but are subject to Latin Metropolitans, which is what makes me mad. They cannot erect their own new eparchies in the North because it is "Latin canonical territory"--which is a bunch of garbage since the Syro-Malabars and Malankara have been there for 1000 years more than the Latins (but didn't get a chance/missed the chance to spread in significant numbers in the north).

In my opinion, we should sack canonical territories and let each Ritual Church set up its own eparchies wherever its faithful reside. The communication age and mass migrations of people has rendered canonical territory an archaic idea (along with "one bishop per city").

In Christ,

anastasios

I know there are some byzantine Catholics in Makedonija (former FYRM)and I'm almost sure that the Byzantine Exarch of Bulgaria, Hristo Proykov is also the Vicar of that community (outside the territory of the Bulgarian Exarchate)... so they're not part of the Diocese of Krisevci????

Could anyone help me with this?

[ 04-10-2002: Message edited by: Remie ]

I'm no expert on the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, as my main area of expertise is with the Syrian Orthodox/Catholics, but from what I do know of the Malabar Church from *back home*, I would guess -- guess -- that a lot of their problems regarding lack of autonomy are their own doing. It seems to me that in many respects, they'd rather have the Pope run their affairs...I guess to them, it's more "Catholic" that way.

The only thing I know of where they desperately seek autonomy is in liturgical matters, because while their Synod and the Vatican's Oriental Congregation are in favour of renewing the Malabar rite to weed out latinisations and restore it to its Chaldean roots, a sizeable number of their priests and people resist this. They seem to think that this is the Vatican's way of slowly placing them under the jurisdiction of the Chaldean Catholic Church, and they don't want that; they want autonomy from that sort of situation. They want their liturgy to be reformed to be more "Indian" (based on a liturgical tradition going back before the advent of the Persian Church in India, a tradition of which we have no records), but in the process, it slowly weeds out Chaldean influences, and keeps the latinisations. Go figure. In the end, if they get their way, the Malabar Liturgy will become a type of Novus Ordo Eastern style.

In many respects, our worst enemy is ourselves.

[ 04-10-2002: Message edited by: Mor Ephrem ]

I am not familiar with the VCII document that says a Patriarchate and a Major Archbishopric are the same thing (certainly not the case with the Orthodox). Can someone provide a citation?

Axios

Dear Axios:

Former postings on this topic to the contrary notwithstanding, a Major Archbishop is not the same as, or equal in rank to, a Patriarch in the Eastern Catholic Churches, which mirrors that of Orthodox ecclesiology.

"Orientalium Ecclesarium" or the "Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite" (the 4th of 16 V2 documents) merely extends the rights and privileges exercised by a Patriarch to a Major Archbishop "who rule the whole of some individual church or rite."

The Decree goes on to state: "[s]eeing that the patriarchal office in the Eastern Church is a traditional form of government, the Sacred Ecumenical Council (Vatican II) ardently desires that new patriarchates should be erected where there is need, to be established either by an ecumenical council or by the Roman Pontiff." (Emphasis mine.)

With the above as a backdrop, we may be able to comprehend the current situation in Ukraine and in other jurisdictions ruled by "Major Archbishops."

[ 04-11-2002: Message edited by: Amado Guerrero ]

Dear Amado,

Magandang Gabi!

Yes, I never said that a Major Archbishop held the same rank as Patriarch, for that would be intolerable heresy .

I only reiterated what the document you quoted said in terms of their authority and power.

This situation actually did obtain in Orthodoxy for the Metropolitan of Kyiv and all Rus' who, although he wasn't a Patriarch, did possess patriarchal powers in union with Constantinople of course.

When Met. Andrew Sheptytsky approached His Holiness Pope St Pius X and told him about these patriarchal rights, the holy Pope simply said, "Then make use of your rights!"

Your use of "merely extends" is really your reading of the document which I give here in full:

"The patriarchs with their synods are the highest authority for all business of the patriarchate, including the right of establishing new eparchies and of NOMINATING BISHOPS of their rite within the territorial bounds of the patriarchate, without prejudice to the inalienable right of the Roman Pontiff to intervene in individual cases.

"What has been said of patriarchs is valid also, in harmony with the canon law, in respect to major archbishops who rule the whole of some individual church or rite." Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite Orientalium Ecclesiarum.

So, what patriarchs do, major archbishops can do as well, and in this respect, there is no difference between them according to this Decree, even though there is a hierarchical difference.

Now we come to the question of nominating bishops. According to the decree, even Eastern Catholic Patriarchs can only do so within the territorial bounds of the Patriarchate.

"Territorial" refers to geography does it not? And if the Melkites and others are nominating and consecrating their own bishops for their eparchies outside the "territorial bounds" of their patriarchate, what gives them the right to do so? Certainly, not Vatican II!

But if the Eastern Patriarchs are doing this, then Eastern Catholic Major Archbishops can do this as well, following the Decree. In other words, if Major Archbishops can't nominate and ordain bishops for outside its territorial jurisdiction, neither can Eastern Catholic Patriarchs.

As to the "how" of becoming a Patriarchal Church in Catholicism, the Decree merely states that new patriarchates can be erected "either by an ecumencial council or by the Roman Pontiff."

There is no mention here of the ancient Eastern practice of an eastern church declaring its own patriarch, as happened in the case of Patriarch Josef the Hieroconfessor, and then working toward its official recognition by other Patriarchates including the Roman Patriarchate.

But apart from this question, what a fully recognized Eastern Catholic Patriarch does is something that a Major Archbishop can do, with reference to their authority or status, again according to the Decree.

The Roman Pontiff may, according to the same Decree, "intervene in individual cases," but this refers to exceptions in specific cases and not to intervention in the daily business proper to a Particular Catholic Church with either a Major Archbishop or a Patriarch.

As Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic theologians have commented, the Decree goes too far in acknowledging the Patriarchal office in the Eastern Church. There are many autocephalous Orthodox Churches that have Archbishops or Metropolitans only (and not Patriarchs) and yet are in full possession of autocephaly.

This led to some Eastern theologians, such as Alexander Schmemann to call this Decree a "Latin document about the Eastern Churches." But this is an aside to show that Major Archbishops do not have powers that are "merely extended" but, can and do have powers analogous to other Orthodox autocephalous Churches.

This is why we are trying to defend our inalienable rights as a Particular Church in this respect.

Ukrainian Catholic feelings of injustice in this respect stem from the fact that there are Catholic Patriarchates over faithful that number in the thousands, when the Ukrainian Church, numbering in the millions has no patriarchate. This, coupled with the politics of "rapprochement" with the Russians etc. has not led to a good situation.

Alex

[ 04-11-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[ 04-11-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Dear Your Highness, Alex I, King of the Ukrainians in Canada:

My use of the phrase "merely extends" stems from the fact that a "Major Archbishop" does not have the rights and privileges of a "Patriarch" in his own right.

His exercise of the rights and privileges of a Patriarch obtains where there is no Patriarch elected or appointed to head a whole particular church and the Major Archbishop is the de facto head of that particular church.

Under the provisions of the Decree, theoretically he may exercise such power and authority appropriately pertaining to a Patriarch with the tacit approval, or acquiescence, of the Vatican (the Pope, through the Congregation for the Oriental Churches).

In current practice, however, the Melkites, as you said, have been given a free rein in this regard. I think it is understandable because the Melkites have a reigning Patriarch.

I completely agree with you that this "freedom" should apply to all Eastern Catholic Churches, most especially to the Ukrainians!

But let me pose this query: If the Pope decided today to erect a Patriarchate for the Ukrainians, would the relatively peaceful co-existence among the 3 Orthodox factions and the Ukrainian Greek Catholics survive? Do you think Cardinal Husar, the Major Archbbishop of the Ukrainians, is acceptable to all as the inaugural Patriarch of Kyiv?

Maraming salamat po, Haring Alex I! At magandang gabi rin sa inyo.

Dear Amado,

Well, why didn't you say so in the first place?

Your question is very good.

Clearly, Patriarch Husar, if acknowledged by Rome, would be considered Patriarch of the Ukrainian Catholic Church only, without any relation to the Orthodox.

And the Ukrainian Catholic Church could be patriarchal and so recognized insofar as it was the original Orthodox Metropolitan of Kyiv who signed the instrument of Union in 1596.

In terms of the "three Orthodox Churches in Ukraine," too much is made of this, in my view.

There is really the Russian Church that calls itself "Ukrainian Orthodox (Moscow Patriarchate)" and has as little to do with Ukrainian identity and nationality as possible.

Estonia, for example, (much smarter people than the Ukrainians ) has forbidden the Russian Church there to call itself "Estonian Orthodox (Moscow Patriarchate)" but only "Russian Orthodox Church in Estonia" that Moscow rejects.

And this Church appears to be losing ground, even though it still has the support of the government and especially its pro-communist members noted for subservience to Russia.

The "Kyivan Churches" so decried by the Russian press include that uncanonical "so and so," Patriarch Filaret and the autocephalous Church, both of which are ideologically in union with one another, but full union has not been realized owing to politics and to the inevitable impact of there being Ukrainians involved .

Patriarch Husar is on good terms with these uncanonical churches, nevertheless, and tries to broker peace among them, including the Moscow satellite Orthodox church.

Moscow calls all these churches together, including the Catholic one, as "Kyivan Churches" who share a similar pro-uniate mentality.

Let's remember that that uncanonical so and so Filaret actually gave permission to his uncanonical members to attend the papal liturgies during the pope's visit to Ukraine.

Personally, I think Rome will recognize a Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate when hell freezes over, or the Latin Church accepts married priests, whichever comes first.

In other words, it won't happen for a while yet . . .

But Rome and its "yes men" among our bishops have traditionally justified to Ukrainian Catholics the absence of a recognized Patriarch on grounds such as "we couldn't handle it" (just try us), "it would divide our Church" (Roman intervention in our church life do enough of that already) or "it would cause rifts among the Orthodox" (yes, the Orthodox don't like too many jurisdictions . . .).

Enough said. . .

Alex

Dear Gentlemen:

It seems that Rome is playing a game of paper titles and therefore holds a Major Metropolitan in slightly lower regard than a Patriarch.

This is a prime example of why a Ukrainian, Greek Catholic Patriarchate must be formally proclaimed and defined.

These loopholes should really not exist.


defreitas

Friends,

Axios inquired where it is stated that a patriarchate and major archepiscopate are the same thing.

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, which overrules all previous documents, states:

Canon 151 - A major archbishop is the metropolitan of a see determined or recognized by the Supreme Authority of the Church, who presides over an entire Eastern Church sui iuris not endowed with the patriarchal title.

Canon 152 - What is stated in common law concerning patriarchl Churches or patriarchs is understood to be applicable to major archiepiscopal Churches or major archbishops, unless the common law expressly provides otherwise or is evident from the nature of the matter.

The only thing in the CCEO that is different for patriarchal and major archiepiscopal Churches is the way the hierarch takes office after election.

Upon election by the synod, the patriarch is proclaimed and enthroned by the synod. He obtains his office upon enthronement and exercises it validly. He must then request ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff. The only strictures placed on him are that he not convoke the synod or ordain bishops until he has received ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff.

On the otherhand, the major archiepiscopal synod, upon election of a major archbishop, must notify the Roman Pontiff of the election and await his confirmation of the election, which he may deny. After confirmation the major archbishop may be enthroned.

A subtle but signifigant difference. Eastern Catholic Patriarchal Churches operate in a nearly autocephalous manner much like Orthodox Patriarchates. However, in Orthodoxy full autocephaly doesn't depend on if you have a patriarch. A Church may be autocephalous and have a major archbishop (Cyprus, Greece) or a metropolitan (Poland, Czech/Slovak). On the otherhand, a Eastern Catholic Major Archepiscopate is more analogous to an Orthodox Autonomous Church (Japan, China, Sinai). Eastern Catholic Metropolitan and Eparchial Churches sui iuris are indistinguishable in their autonomy from their Latin counterparts.

It is my contention that all Eastern Catholic Churches should be given the same autonomy as patriarchal churches regardless of their rank. I also believe this restriction to "traditional territory" garbage needs to be done away with. A chief hierarch and his synod's authority needs to be immediate and universal in regards to that Church's faithful where ever they are found.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

I thought that in Orthodoxy the Major Archbishop of an Autocephalous Church (like the Church of Greece) has all the "patriarchal" rights but only in his jurisdiction, so he cannot: apoint or name new bishops outside his territory and assume any authority over the historical members of his church who emigrated (so His Beatitude Christodoulos is the Metropolitan and Major Archbishop of Athens and All Greece, but not the M & MA of "All Greeks".

I don't know if this will work too in a Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate, but it would be better if Patriarch Lubomyr becomes the "Patriarch of All Ukrainian Catholics" (like the Chaldean Patriarch) and not only the Patriarch of the UGCC.

This seems to mirror the language of VCI as to the pope's "immediate and universal" authority, does it not?

Axios

The Major Archbishop is a Catholic concept (defined in the Documents of Vatican II). In the Orthodox Church, the Primates of Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Albania and the Czech and Slovak Republics do not have the title of Patriarch. But regardless, it the Holy Synod of the Autocephalous Churches that name new bishops, not any Primate (regardless of title). If you can find an old Catholic shop, you may be able a copy of teh Vatican II Documents with the Offical Reponses (Red Cover). In the Orthodox response, Fr. Alexander Schmemann explains that no Orthodox bishop is a mini-Pope (my words). The Patriarchal and Major Archbishop definitions contained in Vatican II are Western definitions about Eastern Churches. While it certainly is an improvement over the previous situation, in Orthodoxy, the Local Church is the Catholic Church in its totality. No other bishop (including Primate) may do anything in an other diocese without the explicit approval of that Local Bishop (and the Holy Synod must discipline a wrong doing bishop). When the Orthodox Primates met recently, some complaints voiced against the EP was that he was acting Papal in getting involved in jurisdictional disputes within territories historically in other Churches. He is broadly using the "Terre Barbarum" EP clause of the Ecumenical Councils to get involved everywhere. He has also recently stated that the American Church is not yet mature enough for self-governance (is there a fiduciary reason here?) A recent opinion pole in OrthodoxNews was unfavorable to the EP's involvement in the Ukrainian Orthodox mess. Thank God that when the Albanian Autocephalous Church was miraculously reconstituted (and grows literally every day), they were able to withstand the ethnic-jurisdictionalists who wanted to go in and establish themselves. As the North American disintegration (after the Bolshevik Revolution) shows clearly, once it starts, there is no turning back.

In Christ,

Three Cents

Dear Lance,

That is all well and good!

However, and as you know, canon law can be manipulated by Rome especially with respect to the Eastern Churches and their rights.

So what documents tend to proclaim is the "ideal" which is hardly ever put into practice.

The so-called "Particularity" of the Eastern Churches is really a farce, nothing more.

One of the greatest examples of this is the requirement of Patriarch Josef the Hieroconfessor to reside in his "territory" as a precondition to any thought to be given to a Patriarchate.

As he could not go to Ukraine under communism, especially since his church was abolished there, how could the principle of "territoriality" have been applied in his case?

It seemed as if Rome, in the hey-day of "ostpolitik," acquiesced to more than one communist sensitivity.

Alex

There's an interesting thing here:

I read that two uncanonical groups of Portugal and Brazil (the Portuguese Autonomous Orthodox Church, and the Orthodox Catholic Church of Brazil) entered in Communion with the Polish Orthodox Church and with its Archbishop.
I'll try to find something about these churches outside Poland.

While it is unfortunate that many feel that Rome has violated the rights of the Eastern Churches, let us remeber that it is the Vaticans duty to insure that good order be followed in the governing of the various rites.

If Rome allowed a free hand for the Eastern rites in all territories, then this could lead to a lot of confusion as well as open hostility. This in turn would create more friction between the East and West causing much harm and schsim perhaps. Believe me, as an Orthodox Christian I can tell you that the disorder and chaos that we experience because of every juridiction wanting a "free hand" in everybody elses territory has really become a problem over the past century and will probably continue to worsen with all the mass migrations of population that are occuring around the world.
You Eastern Catholics are really lucky to have at least some source of actual authority that can straigten these things out for you. Sure sometimes the rulings are unfair, but as in realistic situation dealing with law, you have to except what gets decided in the end even if you feel it is unfair or just plain wrong. Look at we Orthodox, who leads us, not just in theory but in actuality? Does our sytem of completely self governing patriarchates all doing their own thing really seem like the ideal form of government for the Church universal? What fruit has it born anyway? The Pope can go to just about anywhere and speak with practically anyone being according absolute respect and honor. Even the most hardened secularist recognize him as the world spoksman for Christianity. Yet when the EP arrives in America or Australia, wo greats him anyway besides a buanch of Greeks? Who listens and, it seems, who cares.

On a final note I believe that poor Patriarch Joseph was denied his title by Rome mostly for "ecumenical reasons" (God forbide the Moscow Patriarchate be offended that Ukrainian Catholics have a patriarch, it might prove that one can be a full fledged Orthodox Church yet in communion with the See of Rome)!

Robert K.

It's stuff like this that gies me hope for Catholic-Orthodox reunion.

Whether you agree with Robert K., I appreciate his charitable view of the relationship of the Eastern Catholic Churches with the Vatican.

For the record, I think that the Eastern Catholic Churches should be given a freer hand in their affairs, including and especially episcopal appointments. This "Patriarchal Territory" stuff is nonsensical. The only argument I can think of is the Patriarchates/Major Archiepiscopal Churches in poorer areas (e.g. India) may not have the resources to run what would essentially be an international organization. However, the Congregation for Eastern Churches should be assisting their efforts in that, not shutting them out and dominating them.

Going out on a limb, I believe the the Byzantine jurisdictions in the US and Canada should be merged into a single Patriarchate/Major Archiepiscopate, with the Archeparchial see in Fargo, ND.

Just kidding about the Fargo part...

-NDHoosier
Still on the march to Constantinople

But "Patriarch of Pittsburgh" has a nice ring to it!

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

What resources might they not have that they would need to run their Church rather independently? Admittedly, I don't know all that much about administration, so this is a question seeking information as well as expressing doubt, since the Orthodox Church in India runs an international organisation completely independently and rather well, all things considered (since you brought up India as an example). What would the Eastern Catholics in India need as far as resources go that the Orthodox in India either don't need or have already to care for their people? How are or should both groups be different in this way?

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