www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Eparchial & Parish Events UGCC: Getting rid of paternalism pre-req for one Orthodox Church

Getting rid of paternalism is a prerequisite of the one Local Orthodox Church, UGCC head

14 April 2015
http://risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/state/church_state_relations/59717/

Unification of the Churches is impossible without religious freedom. A necessary element of religious freedom is the church-state partner relations. Whenever a state, even our own, wants to use the church for their political goals, it commits violence over it. The principle of non-interference into the church life is a prerequisite for its development.

Patriarch Sviatoslav told about this in his sermon on April 13, 2015, the patronal feast of the UGCC Patriarchal Cathedral of Resurrection in Kyiv, according to the Information Department of the UGCC.

According to the hierarch of the UGCC, getting rid of from state paternalism is a prerequisite for building a local church in Ukraine. "Otherwise, every church unity that comes from the outside, which is designed in any public office, is not helpful but generates new divisions,” stresses the patriarch.

“That's why we, on the one hand, work and pray for unity between churches and on the other hand we declare the need for freedom of the Church and partnerships with our Ukrainian state,” said the patriarch.

After the sermon patriarch called on to pray for unity between all the heirs of Volodymyr's baptism: “Let us pray and build one local church in Ukraine.”

This is also a well-worn theme oft-repeated by the UGCC leadership.

One wonders what is meant by "One Local Church" and what its hierarchy would look like.

Also, if the UGCC is intended to form part of this united Ukrainian Church - where does that leave the UGCC's loyalty to Rome?

If anyone over there continues to entertain the idea that the UGCC can be both "in communion with Rome" and "in communion with the Local Church" - they understand neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy.

Alex

Both Patriarch-emeritus Lubomir and the Synod of the Melkite-Greek Catholic Church have proposed precisely that!

Bless, Otche Nastoiatele!

If they can pull that off, I will be the first to acclaim their work as miraculous!!

Alex

Indeed, without a resolution of the underlying disputes between the Orthodox and Rome over the issues of universality in terms of Papal jurisdiction and a consensus on the entire issue of infalibilty is reached, what the UGCC speaks of can't occur.

Dear DMD,

Absolutely! The UGCC is not immune to the idealism of the "Orthodox in communion with . . . everyone" mentality.

I would hope that the latest response of the UGCC to that UAOC eparchy that wants to unite with it isn't of this same brand.

If so, and I certainly don't know, then the entire project is not only doomed from the start - it may also become a text-book case of "don't let this happen to you" in Orthodox-Catholic ecumenism.

Alex

As much as I would hope to live to see the day when true union can be accomplished, wanting it, wishing for it and even praying for it will not necessarily make it so.

While we who are Orthodox and you who are Eastern Catholic have a great bond of a shared patrimony in terms of our theology, ritual and faith the reality is that those issues which keep us apart are such that they can not be overlooked in our zeal for union. The gap which keeps us apart may have been narrowed over the course of the past 50 years but the two fundamental issues which I mentioned above remain vexatious.

Dear DMD,

Perhaps movement closer to unity may happen at the local Church level.

I have been reflecting on the statement by our own Primate/Patriarch after he received a request from a UAOC leader in eastern Ukraine who said he wished to come into full union with the UGCC and what did he and his Synod need to do etc.

Our Primate responded not by saying, "Just come on over . . ." but by saying that discussions need to be had about how "communion" can be established between the two jurisdictions without one "swallowing up" the other.

If they could pull that off, it will set a very good precedent in EC-Orthodox relations.

And I think that it would make our Administrator very happy too! (And I'm all for that as well!)

Alex

I ask respectfully, DMD: what do you think those issues are exactly? I know that can be a loaded question, but I don't mean it that way. It's just that, from a theological point of view, I cannot for the life of me see them as being much more substantial than will.

Actually, it might well be smaller to at least take serious steps in this smaller microcosm.

For example, specify that, for this particular church, Roman authority is limited to an appellate capacity. And that it shall not be required to subscribe to any doctrine unless accepted by the whole Orthodox Communion and Rome.


And then try to stop that from spreading . . .

I still suspect that communion is going to come from the laity, not the hierarchy, as the faithful refuse to participate in schism (which will then bring a lot of Orthodoox notions/behaviour/ecclesiology to the other side of the divide)

hawk

Bless Reverend Father!

DMD will answer for himself, of course. But I wanted to comment on your excellent post myself and as a member of the UGCC.

The UGCC has certainly come a long way in terms of "Easternization" of its theology, ecclesiology and the like.

But are we not somewhat like the Anglicans in this regard? Is there a real consistency in this throughout our Particular Church? I can't say that there is.

The issue you raise is really only specific to that "wing" of the UGCC that is truly "Orthodox in communionn with Rome."

Other more Latin-oriented "wings" (and these today will often begin a similar conversation by flatly denying that the UGCC ever "suffered from Latinization" throughout its history) would loudly protest that your question "smacks of indifferentism."

They would maintain the Latin theological a priori's as something that is part and parcel of the UGCC including not only the modest points that DMD raises, but also the Filioque etc.

I've seen too many of our "very Eastern" clerics and theologians burned by such to conclude that we pay liplservice to "Eastern Christianity" (and certainaly everyone in the UGCC is agreed on that term), but we are terribly divided on the interpretation of that term.

This began when our holy Patriarch-Hieroconfessor Joseph spoke in favour of Catholic-Orthodox reunion and dared to say that "there are no substantive differences" between our two Churches.

This was followed by some of the most insulting commentary from some of our own bishops who, when tearing the old Hieroconfessor apart, wouldn't even mentinon his name, but simply referred to him as "one of our hierarchs" INDEED!

And the problem is aggravated by the situation where each "camp" is convinced that the entire Church interprets "Eastern Christianity" as it does. Not . . .

There are still very many UGCC members for whom "Particular Church" has no real meaning and who see themselves as "Roman Catholics who use different rites and ceremonies."

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your sacerdotal blessing,

Alex

The Lord bless.

Thanks for this, Alex. I accept your description of the tensions in the UGCC, although I admit either to having been protected from, or having stayed away from, the 'Latinisers' in the Church.

The weakness in your analogy with Anglicanism, though, is that in Anglicanism there is no specific authority on which to base one's theological allegiance. As a former 'Anglo-Catholic' myself, I read Reformation developments one way, while my extremely low-church neighbour read them an entirely different way. I cited Richard Hooker on the Eucharist, and the same neighbour simply said that Hooker didn't matter. And there was no one and nothing to arbitrate between us.

For Eastern Catholics, however, it is very different. Pope Leo XIII's respect for the Eastern Churches, the implications of which were worked out in the text of Ecclesiarum Orientalium which (as we all know on here) states unequivocally that Eastern Churches must retain their rites unadulterated by Latinisations, make the will of Rome clear. Ironically, the very authority to which the Latinisers want to kowtow is the same one they are being disobedient to when they persist in their Latinisations.

Or at least it seems to me. I seriously hope I am not just exerting an wishful, Anglo-Catholic styled hermeneutic again!

Well, to point out the vast differences within the Ukrainian Greek Catholic community one only look at one end to St. Elias in Brampton and on the other to the Cathedral parish of St. Josaphat in Cleveland. It is like Alex said, akin to Anglicanism.. very high Church and low church...And I suspect with respect to aspects of theology as well...I've referred many to St. Elias webpage over the years for a good introduction to the Orthodox Faith, with a caveat that it is united with the Church of Rome. I say this as those who have been members here for years know as one fervently praying for the unity on earth which I believe exists in the presence of God, but we can not minimize our present situation here on Earth. (And yes, there are similar ritual ranges within Orthodoxy, but I don't think there one would find the aspects of theology differing except on the fringes of Hyperdoxy.)

As a descendant of Greek Catholic 'schismatics' as we used to be called, I find the words of Pope Leo XIII less than comforting at the least...Actions speak louder than do words as my grandparents learned the hard way.

Fair enough, DMD.

And I certainly recognise your history of irenic posts with regard to those of us in communion with Rome.

I am not sure I should now go investigate St Josaphat's. I don't want to depress myself. ;-)