www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Melkite Answers to Common Questions

Given that the Kyivan bishops who proposed the Treaty of Brest did not intend to sever their communion with the Orthodox Church when they reopened their communion with the Church of Rome, and that several Metropolitans of Kyiv were actually in communion with Rome before the Treaty of Brest, this is just a continuation of a long-cherished aspect of Kyivan Church history.

I had not heard "that several Metropolitans of Kyiv were actually in communion with Rome before the Treaty of Brest"!
Can you tell us more?

I'll have to dig out Fr. Borys Gudziak's book Crisis and Reform: The Kyivan Metropolitanate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Genesis of the Union of Brest. From the time of the Union of Florence through the end of the 16th century, there were several Kyivan Metropolitans who either openly or privately accepted the Union.

Thanks, Herbigny. They refer to 'the letter of Cardinal Husar concerning his idea of a "double unity" of Greek Catholics with Rome and Constantinople at the same time'. Do you know whether the text of that letter can be found online?

I too would be interested if anyone out there can find the letter of "Patriarch Lubomyr" (hate when they call him "Cardinal" {no offense to the real RC Cardinals}) floating his great idea of "double unity". He had a few really great ideas that he floated - like an exploration of the role of something like a College of Patriarchs in the Catholic Communion.

These initiatives continue to float and I believe at some point must land, take root, and bear fruit. I would say this especially about the Zogby Initiative. The mere fact that the Latin Church (or more accurately, the bureaucrats of the Patriarchal dicasteries did not agree) does not end the matter. In the Catholic Communion, the Churches can disagree (even about some very serious matters) and still remain "family", i.e. without breaking Communion. We continue to commemorate each other in the diptychs. We continue to care for each other, work with each other, etc. These cases are not appeals to Rome, nor are they matters within the Latin Patriarchate, so the principle of "Roma dixit, causa finis" does not apply.

These initiatives of Patriarch Lubomyr & esp. Bishop Elias (Zogby) continue to float and I believe at some point must land, take root, and bear fruit. The mere fact that the Latin Church (or more accurately, the bureaucrats of the Patriarchal dicasteries did not agree) does not end the matter at all at all.

(sorry about the repetition, I meant to do it in 2 parts, but messed it up)

As far as I know the Melkite Holy Synod did not recant their position. The Vatican dicastery did not demand a recantation. The Vatican dicastery did not break Communion. The Vatican dicastery did not threaten to break Communion. The Vatican dicastery did not invoke any censures or threaten any censures against the Synod Fathers. They just disagreed. Voila.

In the Catholic Communion, the Churches can disagree (even about some very serious matters) and still remain "family", i.e. without breaking Communion. We continue to commemorate each other in the diptychs. We continue to care for each other, work with each other, etc. These cases are not appeals to Rome, nor are they matters within the Latin Patriarchate, so the principle of "Roma dixit, causa finis" does not apply.

These issues and initiatives are still alive and the causa finis non est (if you will excuse my bad latin).

ps take the case ordinations of married men to the presbyterate in Canada in the early days. They were ordained. (Certain individual(s) of the local church, whose name(s) & position(s) I shall not mention, were highly offended and these few (or 1) complained to the Vatican.) The Vatican suspended the priests. The Eparch appealed the suspension. While the appeal was under consideration the Eparch directed the priests to continue to function. And so it remains up to today. As far as I know, there never was a definitive resolution. In many such cases, that dictum: "it's complicated" really applies. That is to say it is not as straightforward as the CCEO or Pastor Aeternus (vis a vis the Eastern Catholic Churches) might seem to suggest. Of course now the issue of married priests (while not officially nor publically approved of by the Vatican dicasteries) is a total non-issue (at least in the UGCC, and I believe in the Melkite GCC too).

The interesting point here is that neither Rome nor the Orthodox disagreed with the gist of Bishop Elias's assertions. Their primary response was that we're not ready for this. Like many things, however, this initiative is already and not yet. Much of it already happens in the Middle East with full knowledge.

Fr, Deacon Ed

Wow, very interesting discussion. How many battles we have in Ukraine on this topics. I have not read all answers - too much letters he-he. But the first topic is very interesting...