Should Patriarch Lubomyr now be considered the de facto Patriarch for all Byzantines? If so what steps must be taken to make this a full reality? If not, why not?

CDL

Patriarch Lubomyr cannot be considered Patriarch of all the Greek-Catholics: His Holiness Patriarch Gregory III of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and All the East would have some comment to make, and so would his Holy Synod! In addition, the Romanian Major Archbishop and his Holy Synod would also have some comment to make. So would the Italo-Greek hierarchs, the Apostolic Exarch in Athens, and so forth.

Fr. Serge

We have, however, twice in the distant past, hosted polls as to whether folks felt that there should be 2 patriarchs for the Byzantine Churches - one for those of the Greek Tradition and one for those of the Slav Tradition. Memory serves that most folks did not dismiss the notion out of hand.

I'll try and find those tonight and remind us what the results looked like - maybe even post a new version.

Many years,

Neil

It would seem logical that since the Ruthenians have no Patriarch and since in the early 20th century both the Ukies and the Ruthenians were under one Administrator and since Patriarch Lubomyr is actually asserting strong leadership that the two Byzanitne Churches ought to unite under his leadership.

CDL

Right on CDL !

I bet just about everyone in the American Byzantine Catholic Church feels that the way you do.

I.F.

PS: I'm heading to my nuclear bunker where it's safe.

Sounds like a plan to me! A very welcome idea!

So, what is the fear? Loss of Rusyn plainchant? Varenyky replacing pyrohy?

His Beatitude Patriarch Lubomyr is the de facto leader of the Greek Catholic Churches of the Constantinopolitan-Kievan kind, in my book. He is out on the frontlines advocating for union with our mother church in Constantinople. And he is taking the hits. Eis polla eti, Despota!

There are many blessings to be found for all of us if we regained a proper ecclesiology.

IMHO, we should rally behind our Patriarch and push the ball foward. Time is of the essence.

Not only will you find those in the BCC opposed to this (even in the hierarchy), but you will also likely find interest in the UGCC has waned, especially in the last few years. Why would Patriarch Lubomyr consider such a thing when there is absolutely no interest (and even opposition) from the American BCC hierarchy? It doesn't seem sensible.

It's no secret the BCC in the US wants to pave its own unique American "Ruthenian" particularity, as we have seen with the exclusivity of the RDL promulgation and the accompanying statements by its protaganists.

I do look for Uzhorod to possibly relinquish its sui iuris status and fully integrate in the future; I do not expect the same for the remainder. Their clergy are listed in the UGCC-wide directory, they participate directly in joint projects with Kyiv and L'viv, send seminary candidates for formation, send candidates for monastic life to the UGCC, etc.

I myself have been of two minds on this; but after some discernment and my own experiences, while I do hope and pray for the best for our BCC brethren in the US, they have chosen their path.

Are there any good online sources that outline Patriarch Lubomyr's vision for the UGCC?

Wow! I think I'll grab a can of pop, make some popcorn and watch this thread explode!

If two Eastern Catholic Churhes cannot get together what hope is there for Catholic-Orthodox rapproacmment?

Amen!

I hope the thread doesn't explode. We have important questions to ask related to the ecclesiology of our Church.

The question certainly is a delicate one in certain circles, but not always for Christian reasons.

I for one would favor a united Slavic-Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate in Kyiv and a united Greek Catholic Patriarchate in Antioch. The sooner we Eastern Catholics are able to act as one, the better.

In ICXC,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

Certainly one can theorize and contemplate. The historical reality is that what is now the BCCA and the UGCC Archeparchy all were originally united in the person of Bishop +Soter of blessed memory within the UGCC sent by Metropolitan Andrey.

I myself at one time harbored some hope that a stronger Greek Catholic Metropolia could be formed to make the optimum use of the resources that have been given to the shepherds to carefully guard, but I no longer have that hope.

It is not pessimism that drives me to say this, but rather reality and the recognition that two different paradigms of church structure, mission, and vision are present between the two. I do not say that as an outside observer, but as one who has served as a deacon in both Churches.

That does not negate the fact that both are Catholic and that while each remains a particular Church, they do enjoy full Eucharistic communion. To compare this thing, these proposals to rapprochment with the Orthodox, failure of ecumenical dialogue, etc. is not fair for any of the parties, whether Latin or Greek Catholic or Orthodox.

But there is one essential thing that must happen. There has to be first a firm desire to do something as major as this sort of reintegration by the hierarchy of the BCCA. And therein lies the first hurdle. The BCCA would likely say "all Churches in the US should join us, we're uniquely American", etc.

The UGCC response would be a dismissal of that proposal outright. We enjoy a truly worldwide Church united in ecclesiastical structure with a Synod presided over by His Beatitude, and any fractioning to the level of a micro-particular Church from the patriarchal structure is nonsensical. We would also say there is a world-wide network of support structures such as seminaries, universities, programs, etc. within our Church already functioning (or restored from the Soviet era, as the case may be).

That desire for reintegration into the UGCC has not yet been manifested even in an informal way that I know of, much less any kind of formal proposal to His Beatitude. The BCCA has clearly, especially in the last few years, charted a course of identity as a particular modern American Church sui iuris and certain key clergy (even on this Forum) of the BCCA have been vocal in their intention to remain with that identity.

Regarding the sensus fidelium: while I certainly respect and applaud the zeal of John and others, at this point I doubt one could muster enough concerned laity to support it or even seriously catch the attention of the BCCA hierarchs, who likely have their own opinions of why such a thing is not practicable. With the RDL still causing waves, in addition to other crises, I doubt seriously any major ecclesial shift such as this would even get off the ground in any significant way in the forseeable future.

I really do feel that the best course now is for each of us to take our own course, follow our own unique ecclesiastical desires and visions, be confident in our own particularities and evangelize in our own ways. The results will manifest themselves.
FDRLB

Even this proposal, one I strongly advocated on this Forum about five years or so ago in discussions with the Admin and others, leaves us with two, not one. And this ignores the other non-Byzantine Churches who most definitely have the same evangelical mission as we Greek Catholics do.