UAOC, I think, is the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

UOC-KP is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyivan Patriarchate.

Of course, there is another explanation of "KP", it is the old GI phrase, "kitchen patrol".

How much of this is Russia's desire to dominate Ukraine and how much of this is based upon a desire to remain separate from Catholics?

CDL

Thank you, Dan, for saying that.

As a "schismatic uniate", I say "enough". If I were Patriarch Lubomyr (thank God I am not), I would send missionaries into Russia, and set up a Russian Greek Catholic Church. Kyiv would be the seat of the Patriarchate, and Moscow would be a Metropolitanate, subject to Kyiv, and part of the Synod of Bishops of the UGCC. But, then the name of the jurisdiction would have to change. Perhaps, the Greek Catholic Church of Rus! (or Kyivan Rus?). I say all of this because I do not think that Moscow is the least bit serious about Christian unity. There is very little chance (unless the Holy Spirit gets directly involved, and practically forces a change of heart-and, I would never rule that out!)that the Moscow Patriarchate, as a body, would ever seriously reconsider re-estabishing full communion with the Catholic Church. Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with an "ecumenism of return" (i.e., an ecumenism which stresses that the Catholic Church is in possession of the "fullness of the Faith", and that others should be invited to explore this truth) which "liberal" Catholics find so objectionable. I speak from the heart. If I felt otherwise, integrity would demand that I join the Church which I believed to be in possession of the full Faith! Better that we (Catholics and non-Catholics) should agree to disagree, than to pretend that we are on the "same page".

Dn. Robert

Father Deacon,

I agree with you about Russia. They are not serious. But His All Holiness Bartholomew seems quite serious. What about that part of the equation?

CDL

Patriarch Bartholomew studied at the Orientalum. He knows the "Roman mind". He seems more serious about unity. I would run with that. But I would never compromise on issues of Dogmatic definition, etc. One matter of concern from the past: around 1996 or 1997, he made a statement that the Orthodox Church was "ontologically different" from the Catholic Church. If he is still with that, that could be problematic.

Dn. Robert

But according to the Vatican, to which you profess obedience, there is no Patriarch Lubomyr.

Grace and peace,
Rd. John

There is a Patriarch Lubomyr - we commemorate him in every liturgical service. We are a particular Church, not a Latin Church. I don't know where you get the idea of "profess obedience"; the Union of Brest does not use such language. Full communion, yes; recognize the primacy of the successor of Peter, yes.

Reader John,

My understanding of Patriarchate is that it is something that comes into being, over time, as a particular church matures and grows, and then is subsequently recognized officially. Perhaps I have a deficient understanding. But, the UGCC has matured and grown over time, esp. since 1991. It has become a "real" Church. (I am not of the UGCC, but of the Pittsburgh Metropolia of the (Carpatho-Rusyn) Byzantine Catholic Church in the USA). I would say that it (the UGCC) is a lot more real than much of what passes for Eastern Christendom in the Diaspora. The prior Pope, and the present one, have stated their opinions that they would like to recognize the UGCC as a Patriarchate. However, Rome's relations with the Moscow Patriarchate have become the "fly in the ointment" in so far as such recognition goes.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

I pray that the roc has a change of heart.

Dn Robert,

Ah, that makes sense, then. I think the difference comes form us working with different understandings of where the title of Patriarch comes into being.

It was my understanding that the title of patriarch had nothing to do with whether or not a Church was a real Church, but rather that it was a title of honor recognizing the venerable history of a given particular Church and that, as such, the title of Patriarch had to be bestowed by others, either by an ecumenical council, other patriarchates, or in your case, the Roman Patriarch, not claimed by a particular church for itself. Thus it is that several of the autocephalous local Churches within the Orthodox communion are headed by Metropolitans or Archbishops, and not Patriarchs.

It was further my understanding that Rome had specifically declined, as of yet, to grant the title of Patriarch to the Major Archbishop of the UGCC. I'm not saying that Rome wouldn't like to bestow the title or that it won't be given in the future, just that to this point, Rome has not given or recognized the title.

Thus it seemed odd to me to hear you both profess loyalty to the Catholic faith as proclaimed by Rome and yet use titles not recognized by Rome.

But it seems we're working with different understandings of the history? Do you know of any other examples of the title being unilaterally assumed, rather than granted by others?

Grace and peace,
Rd John

Reader John,

In the case of Kyiv, I wouldn't say that the UGCC unilaterally claims Patriarchate status for itself, since that city was the location of the seat of the Patriarchate of the Church of Kyivan Rus for years. The Patriarchate was moved to Moscow, for practical reasons, only after the sack of Kyiv. Most Ukrainians, both Greek Catholic and Orthodox, would argue that there is a strong historical basis for restoring Kyiv as the city of the Patriarchate. Our poster, Diak, above, has pointed out that the liturgical books of the UGCC commemorate the "Major Archbishop" of Kiev-Halych as the Patriarch. I could be wrong, but the fact that Rome has done nothing to "discipline" the UGCC, in my mind, adds up to a tacit recognition of Patriarchal status. It is the politics of ecumenism with Moscow which prevents a full-blown formal recognition.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

I think you are right about this. Someone in some kind of authority, either council or pope, would have to support the title of Patriarch for it to have any real validity. Otherwise, the other churches would probably not recognize it. Now whether or not the Ukrainian Catholic Major Archbishop deserves the title is another matter completely. He seems to be an exemplary leader and a good man, so I am certain he is worthy of the title. But he doesn't have it yet, at least on any basis recognized by Rome. And that's the thing about being Catholic, the view held by the Pope does matter. As far as I know, Pope Benedict hasn't addressed this. The Orthodox aren't going to recognize the title no matter what Rome does.

Reader John,

In the case of Kyiv, I wouldn't say that the UGCC unilaterally claims Patriarchate status for itself, since that city was the location of the seat of the Patriarchate of the Church of Kyivan Rus for years. The Patriarchate was moved to Moscow, for practical reasons, only after the sack of Kyiv. Most Ukrainians, both Greek Catholic and Orthodox, would argue that there is a strong historical basis for restoring Kyiv as the city of the Patriarchate. Our poster, Diak, above, has pointed out that the liturgical books of the UGCC commemorate the "Major Archbishop" of Kiev-Halych as the Patriarch. I could be wrong, but the fact that Rome has done nothing to "discipline" the UGCC, in my mind, adds up to a tacit recognition of Patriarchal status. It is the politics of ecumenism with Moscow which prevents a full-blown formal recognition.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert [/quote]

Dn Robert,

Historically, though, there never was a patriarch in Kyiv when the city was the seat of the Church of Kievan Rus'. There was a metropolitan, but it wasn't until a while after the see was moved to Moscow that it was elevated to the status of a patriarchate, which has continued to this day as the Moscow Patriarchate.

And so, it's not a matter of restoring the title, but of it needing to be granted anew.

This isn't to say that Major Archbishop Lubomyr isn't worthy of such a title. I've heard nothing but good things about him. But such titles aren't assumed unilaterally. They are granted by others.

Grace and peace,
Rd John

Reader John,

This is true, which leads to the question as to why Rome tolerates the present liturgical usage in the UGCC. Is it a tacit recognition, or are they simply afraid to get the Ukes all riled up?

Dn. Robert

The Patriarchates of Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria were all created and not immediately recognized by the EP or other Patriarchates. Sometimes it takes decades, sometimes longer for outside recogniztion of what is an internal reality amongst the Particular Church.

That's just it - as you have demonstrated many Catholics don't seem to really understand the nature of a particular Church, especially those coming from Latin backgrounds. The view held by the Pope does matter to us, but we are a particular Church, else we would be relying on Rome for every decision and we would be Latin, not the particular Greek Catholic Church of Kyiv. The view held by the EP does matter to us, as well, for that matter.

While we are in communion with Rome, we are fully a particular Church sui iuris . Recognition of an ecclesial reality always begins at the level of the local church. Lex orandi, lex credendi - and we have the liturgical reality of the commemoration of His Beatitude as Patriarch.

The cultus of saints is something like this as well - certainly many saints are recognized but were never canonized officially.

Many years to His Beatitude +Lubomyr, Patriarch of Kyiv, Halych and all Rus' and the diaspora for Ukrainian Greek Catholics.

During several pontifical visits, both to Ukraine and for Divine Liturgies in Rome the deacons have commemorated His Beatitude as Patriarch directly in the presence of the Holy Father. As Deacon Robert has correctly pointed out, not even a word about that particular liturgical usage.

Two points:

The "Patriarchate of Moscow" was never situated in Kyiv - Moscow acquired that title after the Metropolitan had doubled, so that there was a Metropolitan of the Northern section in Moscow and of the Southern section in Kyiv.

Patriarchates usually come into being by the way of custom. We may note that the Greek-Catholic Patriarch Maximos V of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and All the East normally addressed the Chief Hierarch of the Ukranian Greek-Catholic Church precisely as "Patriarch" and that title appeared frequently in Le Lien. Rome attempted to stop Patriarch Maximos from continuing this usage and Patriarch Maximos courteously declined, continuing to address and refer to the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Patriarch as precisely that.

More recently, there is another interesting example. One of the last acts of Pope John Paul II was the raising of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church to a "Major Archiepscopate". Immediately, the Chief Hierarch of this Church assumed the title of Catholicos. When Rome, in the person of Cardinal Kasper, sought to interfere, the Catholicos wrote a quite clear letter, making the point that it is up to the Synod of the Local Church to determine the title of the Chief Hierarch. The first Catholicos eventually fell asleep in the Lord, and his successor also uses the title "Catholicos".

That is how it is. One either has a consciousness of the dignity of the Local Church, and acts accordingly, or one accepts the reductio in obedientiam which is the essence of unatism.

Father Serge

Fr. Deacon,

FYI. The poster identifies himself, in the profile, as Eastern Orthodox.

Dn. Robert

I wonder whether we do. It seems we are obsessed with gaining the patriarchal title when we should be concerned with having true autonomy/autocephaly like our Synods being able to elect our own bishops anywhere. Not every autocephalous Orthodx Church is headed by a patriarch, some are headed by an archbishop (i.e major archbishop), some are headed by a metropolitan.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I once observed in a pm to a member of the UGCC who asked for my opinion that a patriarch is IMHO a "bishop's bishop." By that, I mean he is a bishop with a particular honor and a particular charism that goes with his office. A patriarch ISTM is called to support, encourage, and mentor his brothers; to give them leadership. And at the same time to have them provide the same sort of support, encoruagement, and mentoring to him.

It's lonely at the top. This principle is often batted about in the secular world and I would argue that it is the same with a bishop. Who does he go to for a place to vent his frustrations about limitations he finds in himself and in the goals he sets for his work? My own bishop told me that he stays away from priestly gatherings because he is conscious of the fact that they cannot feel free to discuss things among themselves when he is around and also that anything he might say could/would be quickly taken out of context or misquoted. So a bishop goes to his patriarch--or maybe he should.

As for the title, I told this friend to tell His Beatitude that it is not in some formal recognition that one becomes a patriarch. It is in the granting of this title and recognition by his fellow bishops and by the believers. That, it seems to me, is how the Eastern Church works. At least that is what I have been taught. The people are the guardians of the Faith. The Holy Spirit speaks through the unanimous voice of the believers, both clergy and lay.

It seems if the title has passed into the liturgical books there doesn't seem to be any more need to worry about some legal recognition from outside. And this, for me, underscores the different ways in which East and West approach this question. One begins with the central Mystery of the Faith and the "lex orandi, lex credidi." The other approaches through legal channels developed outside the liturgical mystery.

So I finished by telling my friend to simply tell His Beatitude to be what his people already tell him he is both in and out of the Divine Liturgy. Sign his name +Patriarch Lubomyr and send back any mail that comes to him addressed in any other fashion.

BOB

In July of 1988 as part of the festivities marking the 'Millennium of Christianity in Rus-Ukraine' a youth rally with over 5,000 people participating was held in front of the UGCC St-Sophia Cathedral in Rome. Patriarch Joseph was buried in the crypt of the cathedral at that time. The Holy Father John Paul II was present as were many Roman and all UGCC Greek Catholic hierarchs from around the world. When they announced that the orchestra and choir would sing a 'Prayer of our Patriarch', the Holy Father stood in respect. What I remember most was not that he stood, but that he was just about the first person to stand and the last to sit.

I.F.

PS: I recently watched the now 20 year old video from our own youth rally which took place at end of the festivities in Rome. In the 10 person reviewing line is a monk who sure looks familiar. I was thinking of sending him a copy.

Fr. Deacon, I hardly think it is an "obsession" for the largest particular Eastern Catholic church to possess the fullness of a traditional Eastern hierarchal structure.

One could bring up many churches that are smaller and DO enjoy the Patriarchate. Nor do I think recognition, even on a local level, of reality is "obsession".

My bishop +Richard regularly refers to His Beatitude as "Patriarch Lubomyr" regularly, in official correspondence to the clergy of our Eparchy, and I cannot recall any reference to him as "Major Archbishop" since his consecration over five years ago.

If it is appropriate for my bishop to recognize the hierarchal reality, it is certainly so for me. And I would not be so naive or presumptious to consider his motives "obsession".

Several interesting points have been made here, especially that the title of Patriarch is not assumed by oneself nor necessarily given from "on high" except in the sense that it originates from the Holy Spirit as recognized in the community of believers and the collegial relations of the hierarchy. This sounds much like how startsi or holy ascetics are recognized by the Christian community. This is not unlike how Padre Pio or Mother Teresa were recognized as a groundswell, if you will. The commentary in this forum about Patriarch Lubomyr has that same sense.

I'm reminded of the "dependency & underdevelopment" theory debated among economists. Like nations, a particular church or rite which is dependent on another (even though said to be sui juris may really becomes servile in a sense, instead of carrying out its sacred mission in the freedom of the Holy Spirit). Sadly, this can be seen in the universal church, where dominant rites can stifle or attempt to mute the authentic voice of so-called "sui juris" churches. The freedom exhibited by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has often been breath of fresh air (e.g. in reference to married clergy in North America and the cited example of bestowing the patriarchal title on their Metropolitan).

On the matter of how many patriarchs there are in a given rite, one theologian once told me to look at the Armenian Church. He stated that the Armenians never promoted a sense of paucity among their patriarchs. Rather they could be happy with several living at the same time. I do not know if this is true, but a quick search did reveal at least 2 Armenian Patriarchs living today, not counting those in communion with Rome. Although I may stand corrected, one thinks that these patriarchs are not competing with one another. They have their respective jurisdictions.

Armenian Patriarchs (current)
[*]Constantinople: Mesrob II Mutafian (1998-present)
[*]Jerusalem: Torkom Manoogian (1990-Present)

Respectfully,
-Pustinik
---------------------------
"Acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved." –St. Serafim of Sarov

Fr. Deacon Randy,

Please don't misunderstand, although I used your quote it was not my intention to single you out. For I do believe we all obsess to a certain degree over gaining the patriarchal title.

I also certainly think the UGCC, the largest Eastern Catholic Church should possess the fullest, most traditional hierachal structure: true autocephaly. In fact I think every Eastern Catholic Church should have true autocephaly: a functioning Synod that can elect its own bishops everywhere and govern its own people without Curial meddling.

However, I don't see why that has to be tied to the patriarchal title. The Orthodox Churches of Cyprus, Greece, Albania, Poland, Czech Lands/Slovakia, and the OCA all have true autocephaly without having a patriarch.

I also don't think there is anything wrong with the UGCC desiring the patriarchal title. If you throw the Orthodox in the UGCC is bigger than every Orthodox Church but the Russian, Romanian, and Serbian.

I wish the two issues could be seperated. As all Eastern Catholic Churches should be working for the end of the Oriental Congregation and the re-writing of the CCEO so that all Eastern Catholio Churches, regardless of size or title of chief hierarch, have true autocephaly.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I do understand the nature of particular churches since I belong to one of them. However, being in communion with Rome has meant a chain has linked particular churches to Rome. That chain can be, and has been, yanked on occasion when it suited Rome's purposes. Those particular churches are not as independent in reality as many would like. We may consider ourselves as "Orthodox in communion with Rome," but particular churches don't generally have the independence that Orthodox churches enjoy.

C. I. X.
True.
We seam too often preoccupied with securing things at the top, probably a reaction of inferiority complexes. The East is organic, grass rooted. Saint Volodymyr obviously knew this. Christianity was taken by this monarch of Rus, not a bargaining chip in securing Roman (Eastern and Western) spheres of influence.
After a millennium of playing their games in which others covet then take, it is time for Kyiv to act positively, not submissively. Let us pray the arrogance of the new Radical Orthodox will not be mistaken for self assurance.
Presentation is everything; from a secular perspective anyway. This joint Kyivan Patriarch is to embrace the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of the Orthodox Faith of Rus’ and all Ukraine. Let us not deceive ourselves that is merely a sanctimonious matter, it will diminish the influence of a controlling empire while fortifying a new democracy christened with an old name and rooted in ancient Christendom. How friendly will navigating in neighboring sees be?

For my own information, what percentage of the population of Ukraine is Catholic, or Orthodox of varying churches? Are there Protestants and Muslims there as well? Does anyone have any figures on this?

Charles,

The CIA World Factbook - always a wealth of info - offers these figures:

Ukrainian Orthodox - Kyiv Patriarchate 50.4%, Ukrainian Orthodox - Moscow Patriarchate 26.1%, Ukrainian Greek Catholic 8%, Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox 7.2%, Roman Catholic 2.2%, Protestant 2.2%, Jewish 0.6%, other 3.2% (2006 est.)

Many years,

Neil

Wow! One would think from some of the posts here that it is a Greek Catholic country. So Ukraine is evidently an Orthodox country with a small minority of Catholics. That's extremely interesting. I didn't know that. Thanks for the information.

What "chain" are you talking about? The Union of Brest makes no mention of a "chain". The comments cause me to stand again by my observation that often those who come from the Latin Church want to project a sort of implicit subordination on our churches to Rome (the image of "chain" certainly brings images of slavery and subservience) which may not even be a conscious thing, but one of their background and upbringing.

I do not think this is the end or the intent of particularity.

It is wonderful that Ukraine is an Orthodox country, including those Orthodox in communion with Rome. Yes, if one looks at the Latin population, it is indeed a minority. With 5 million worldwide, with a presence on most continents, the UGCC has done pretty well starting with a few Eparchies of the Union.

I think it's important to distinguish between Catholic patriarchs and Orthodox patriarchs. They don't appear to have the same independence or authority. This has nothing to do with a "Latin background." I strongly suspect that any Catholic patriarch, metropolitan, or major archbishop, given a direct papal order, will follow it. I don't know of any Catholic patriarch who has or claims supreme authority within his church. I wish the UGCC many successes and thank God for their achievements. No one can, or should, try to take any of that away from them. I realize that none of the Eastern Catholic churches could be considered huge. However, it has come as a surprise to me that the UGCC is a minority in Ukraine. I had really thought they were a much larger church than that.

The reason why there appear to be, and most likely are moe UGCC members in here in the Diaspora is due to political geography. Over the past 300 years, due to Czarist policies, the UGCC was almost exclusively concentrated in the most 'Western parts' of what is now the modern Ukrainian Republic (ex: Halychyna / Galicia, Zakarpattia, Volyn, etc..). During the last 100 years this same territory 'belonged' to various countries such as Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary from which people could more easily emigrate. The areas of Ukraine where there are large numbers of Ukrainian Orthodox were mostly under Russian domination (both Czarist and Communist) and from which it was not easy to emigrate to the West. Hence why today there appears to be many more UGCC members than Orthodox around the world. The reality it is the other way around.

It should also be pointed out, that 'patriotic' UGCC members do not consider themselves to be 'Roman Catholic' but rather 'Orthodox in Communion with Rome' and they use the Austro-Hungarian Imperial term for this, which is 'Greek Catholic'. Many 'patriotic' Ukrainian Orthodox also view the UGCC as 'Orthodox in Communion with Rome' versus 'Ukrainian Autocephalic Orthodox', or 'Ukrainian Orthodox with a Kyivan Patriarchate' (non-aligned).

Should the above mentioned churches unite into one entity, it has been argued that it would be the largest Orthodox Church in the world in terms of active membership.

I.F.

Thanks for some very good information.

I doubt that Patriarch Lubomyr would sign his name in that way - it's not quite polite to do so. I've never heard of him trying to tell hierarchs, priests, or deacons not to commemorate him with the patriarchal title.

Fr. Serge

Dear byzanTN,
I find this thread very confusing in its discussion about the genesis of a Ukrainian Catholic patriarchate, but them I am Ukrainian Orthodox (in Canada).

It is true that Ukraine itself is considered an Orthodox country, while in North America the Ukrainian Catholics are in the majority because of strong emigration patterns from Halychyna and Zakarpatia.

My family has been in Canada for multiple generations, but we still maintain our Ukrainian heritage and participation in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada under the EP.

This statement has been made:
Many 'patriotic' Ukrainian Orthodox also view the UGCC as 'Orthodox in Communion with Rome' versus 'Ukrainian Autocephalic Orthodox', or 'Ukrainian Orthodox with a Kyivan Patriarchate' (non-aligned).

I myself do not see Ukrainian Catholics as “Orthodox in communion with Rome”, I see them as Ukrainian Catholics. My church does not allow Ukrainian Catholics to receive the Holy Eucharist in our church precisely because they are not Orthodox. I do not see what this has to do with being a patriotic Ukrainian at all because to me and to my church it is a church and faith issue.

I wish the Ukrainian Catholics well, but I am Orthodox and am part of the world-wide Orthodox communion based on unity in the Orthodox faith.

Dear byzanTN,

I found a good example of how many 'patriotic' Ukrainian Orthodox view themselves. If you scroll down this link from Ukraine, you will notice at the bottom of the page that the Ukrainian Autocepholous Orthodox Church (UAOC) in Eastern Ukraine lists several 'fraternal' Orthodox Churches, including: the Orthodox Church of Canada and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

http://www.church.poltava.ua/7e.html

There are of course many 'patriotic' Ukrainians within both the Ukrainian Greek Catholic (UGCC) and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches of Canada who have similar fraternal views. There are others who have lost touch with the land of their forefathers. Many of these moved on to the Roman Catholic Church and Billy Graham Churches because they have a more North American 'feel' to them.

I.F.

I am Ukrainian Orthodox and I do not know what you mean at all. As an Orthodox Christian I can treat Ukrainian Catholics as fellow Christians but it does not at all mean that I beleive that they can take communion in my church, which they can't. Ukrainian Catholics are not Orthodox and cannot take communion in an Orthodox Church.
Nor do I as a Ukrainian Orthodox believer want any union of churches based on ethnicity as the common denominator. The Orthodox Church as a whole can only unite with the catholic Church as a whole (including Ukrainian Catholics) when there is unity of faith. Only then will there be inter-communion.
This is what the Orthodox hold and to claim otherwise is just not being honest. How can we have any discussion without honesty?

I greatly appreciate the information about the religious make-up of Ukraine. From what I have seen on TV, Ukraine is a modern country fully in the 21st century. The few Ukrainians I have met here tend to be university students or work at the nearby national lab. But there aren't many of them.

I agree with Orest and Halia12. This effort for unity based on ethnicity, irregardless of the differences in faith that exist between the Orthodox and Catholic communions is misguided at best. Ukrainian Greek Catholics, however much their services resemble Orthodox services, are still Catholic in doctrine. Before there can be any unity based on external similarities in rite or language or ethnicity, there would need to be internal unity in Faith.

Grace and peace,
John

Amen. Amen. Amen. We are better off agreeing to disagree, than to pretend a reality exists which does not. We can still be charitable to each other. Christian unity will come about in God's good time, not ours. The Holy Spirit will see that it occurs when the "fullness of time" has come about.

Dn. Robert

quoted from Orest.

I agree. I am Byzantine Catholic, I am not Orthodox. There are many similarities in belief and liturgy, but as far as church structure and governance, we are definitely not the same. I agree we should respect each other's differences, agree when we can, and agree to disagree when we can't agree. That can all be done with Christian charity. But unity, if and when it comes, has to be based on beliefs not ethnicity.