www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Situation of Patriarchates

Dear Bob,

My Ukrainian Catholic leader took off his Cardinal's ring when he was presented with it to the horror of all surrounding.

And we say that we are under, with Rome.

It was you who made the argument for the Met. Sabodan's "autonomy."

The Pope is coming to Ukraine to the joy of Ukrainian Catholics and many uncanonical (read: Ukrainian) Orthodox.

He will beatify our martyrs who died for their faith under the Soviet Russian yoke.

The Ukrainian CAtholic Church threw off the yoke of Russian Orthodoxy in 1991 by singing "Mnohaya Lita" for the Pope.

Our Ukrainian religious patrimony is better served with the Pope of Rome than anyone else right now, or in the foreseeable future.

Until we can get our act together ourselves, I trust the Pope to help us grow and become the Eastern Catholic Church we are meant to be.

Metropolitan Vladimir Sabodan is a former Professor of Orthodox Theology, a very personable man and someone who is truly concerned with the good of his flock.

I don't think there is anyone in Ukraine, canonical or not, that does not share this estimation of this holy and good man.

My point is simply that "autonomy" for the Church this man of God heads is a joke.

And one may be Orthodox and hold to this opinion as well.

Bob, I will refrain from making these comments in future about this matter that is emotional.

This is the last I will ever say anything about it.

Alex

I think that Ukraine is also an example of "tight autonomy". Finland, by contrast, is an example of "loose autonomy". Japan is somewhere in-between.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Either way, I think we should all loosen up, especially me . . .

I was wrong to say what I said and I fear I may have given offense to Bob.

I will keep my big mouth shut on this, but it is my patrimony and I did grow up in a Uke family where guilt was thrown around like some people throw rice at a wedding.

And now I feel guilt over upsetting Bob.

It is good that you don't take me too much to heart . . .

God bless you, Friend in Christ,

Alex

[This message has been edited by Orthodox Catholic (edited 04-25-2001).]

[And now I feel guilt over upsetting Bob.
It is good that you don't take me too much to heart]

Alex, my dear friend you do not upset me. Even though I completely disagree with you. These are the things we just have to agree to disagree on.
We can still repect each other's opinion even if we don't agree with it.

I could answer some of your comments but you wouldn't like my replies any more than I like yours. So it's best I leave it as is.

Bob

Dear Bob,

Yes, I know you could give even better than you got!!

And I appreciate that you don't!

Now I'll go back to keeping my big mouth shut.

Alex

Dear Eastern Catholics:
I am having a difficult time trying to understand what is going on in the Ukraine. As I understand it there are five different Churches there: The Roman Catholic, The Eastern Catholic, The autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Patriarch Filaret, The Orthodox Church under Moscow.
As I read, there is a question about the Patriarch Filaret, but how many buildings and people does he have, and how many are estimated to be in the other Churches. Also, I understand that the Patriarch Filaret supports the visit of the Pope, but the Moscow Church does not. I don't know about the autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church. I read though that Patriach Filaret is also friendly to the Eastern Catholic (Uniate) Church unlike the attitude of the Moscow Church. Other than the enlightened readers and posters to this bulletin board, is there another good recent reference to the situation in the Ukraine with regards to the politics of the various Churches and Patriarchs there.

Dear Charles,

According to the State Committe of Ukraine on Religious Affairs, these are the statistics of the Churches you mentioned as of 1 January 1998:

1. Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate has 7,357 parishes with 6044 clergy.

2. Orthodox Church, Kyivan Patriarchate has 1880 parishes with 1561 clergy.

3. Autocephalous Orthodox Church has 1060 parishes with 547 parishes.

4. Greek Catholic Church has 3143 parishes with over 2059 clergy

5. Roman Catholic Church has 732 parishes with over 350 clergy.

These figures are out of date, but do indicate a kind of proportional representation.

The Autocephalous Church is in serious talks with the Kyivan Patriarchate to unite and has refused to appoint a successor to their reposed leader for the purpose of union.

Relations between the Ukrainian Orthodox not in communion with Moscow and Ukrainian Greek Catholics are excellent and are improving.

These groups welcome the Pope's visit. Moscow does not because it considers Ukraine to be its jurisdictional backyard and opposes the separatist movement within Ukrainian Orthodoxy which has, to date, remained uncanonical.

My own view and those of many others is that the religious situation is less of a Catholic and noncanonical Orthodox versus canonical Orthodox but more of a "Ukrainian" (either Catholic or Orthodox) versus "Russian" situation.

A recent statement by a representative of the Moscow Patriarchate said that the approval of the Pope's visit by the Ukrainian Orthodox (noncanonical) shows that "they" (must be "Ukrainians?") are really "Catholics at heart" or words to that effect.

You may consult with other Russian Orthodox sites for a more objective viewpoint on this situation

Alex

Dear Charles,

You might find more info at:

www.papalvisit.org.ua [papalvisit.org.ua]

www.ukrweekly.com [ukrweekly.com]


John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck


[This message has been edited by Two Lungs (edited 04-25-2001).]

"What I'm very keen on delving into is the issue of the Oecuminical Patriarch. As that Patriarchate is the first in dignity after Rome, shall it still remain a shadow of its former self?"

In a reunited Church, it would certainly seem that the EP loses whatever authority he has now, you're correct. Between now and then, however, Orthodoxy will need to delve more deeply into its own understanding of Primacy, perhaps creating a new understanding of the role of the EP in the Church -- a role which conceivably could be preserved following restoration of communion with Rome.

"Should not Greece at least be under its jurisdiction?"

Well, obviously you know the history here (Ottoman control of EP made ecclesiastical break inevitable when the revolt against the Ottomans succeeded). That historical situation no longer obtains, it is true, but it is hard to unwind structures once they are in place, as we have learned. Perhaps the EP should no longer be in Istanbul? Perhaps, also, we should think of the role of the EP in terms other than jurisdictional terms?

"I'm afraid that the full thrust towards autonomy and autochephaous Churches before and after the fall of Constantinople has dismantled and fragmented much of what used to be territory under the Patriarch's jurisdiction."

Very true. Thank the Turks for that one. In my own opinion, the Turkish Empire still casts a long shadow over Orthodoxy because most of this fragmentation was a direct result of the Ottoman Empire. It's up to us Orthodox to try to reclaim our own ecclesiology, in structural terms, that was taken away from us by the Turks -- but I'm not holding my breath, because as I said above it's very hard to undo structures once they are in place.

"Aside from the Serbs, and perhaps the Bulgarians"

Both of these were autocephalous before the fall of Constantinople.

"which of the present Eastern European Orthodox Churches (ie. autocephalous Patriarchates) broke off and came into existance close to or after the fall of Constantinople?"

That would include the Church of Greece, the Church of Russia, the Church of Ukraine, the Church of Romania, the Orthodox of Transcarpathia and the Czech and Slovak lands. It's unrealistic to think that this jurisdiction could be -- or should be -- restored at this time, in my opinion.

"I'm wondering whether some kind of de-fragmentizing of Churches is plausible"

I don't think it's likely, because this disease has seeped in very deeply at this point. Ideally, what we would have is not one super-Patriarchate for all of Orthodoxy (like a mirror to the Papacy), but true regional, as opposed to national, Patriarchates. That's the basis of our Orthodox ecclesiology, and its genius -- regionalism. When the concept of "region" shrank to "nation", things got distorted. Ideally, there should be a Balkan Patriarchate, perhaps another one for Eastern Europe, perhaps another one for the Middle East, perhaps another one for North America. Regions should be the basis of this system, as they were at the beginning when the system was devised. But, frankly, fat chance of that happening.

"didn't a fraction of the Serbian Church split off only recently and declare itself a Macedonian Orthodox Church"

No, Tito created the Macedonian Orthodox Church, carving it out of the Serb Patriarchate. Naturally, not very many within Orthodoxy recognize that as legitimate, and so for the time being the Macedonian Church is somewhat isolated.

Personally, I am against the further fragmentation of Orthodoxy, but it seems inevitable because at the present time the system of "national churches" is such that noone wants to be under the jurisdiction of another "national church" that is not of their own "nation". That makes some sense, as it follows the "logic" of "national churches". Until we devise a system of organization other than nation, it seems inevitable that when new nations are created, or when old nations are resurrected, new ecclesiastical structures will likewise be born, per the logic of national churches.

Brendan

Dear in Christ!

Christ is Risen!

Isn't it wonderful to dream and plan for the great day when we are One. God speed this day!

When the inevitable Great and Holy Council is called, and sits, it will no doubt give directions on how all is to be managed. Changes in Church government however, always seem to have evolved over great stretches of time, rather than to have been planned or plotted out. I suspect how everything is arranged will evolve slowly.

I myself am more impatient (I would be so happy to see all this realized now), but I also suspect that God has a plan, whose wisdom is sure.

Christ is Risen!

Elias

Dear Brendan,

Thanks for your insightful perspective. Unfortunately, on a discouraging note, it is necessary to bring up the unpleasant subject of the scourge of Ottoman conquest and its rape of Christendom to understand how these sorry consequences in the Orthodox Churches had been instigated. Had we been living in less "diplomatic" times, I would have no qualms of entertaining the idea of a war of reconquest, not to say I don't fantasize about that at times, owing to the reality of both Antioch and Constantinople still remaining under Turkish rule.

It's strange that the once sick man of Europe, intensely hated by Arabs, Kurds, Greeks, and Armenians alike never saw its last. Kamal Ataturk was instrumental in imbibing modern Turkey with the political strength it enjoys today. Speaking of which, has Ochalan still not been executed yet?

We could speculate to no end on what would have happened had the Byzantines not succumbed to the Turkish onslaughts. I hold to the belief that the fall of Constantinople (in addition to the 1204 sack) is what actually finally consumated the Schism. I suppose the sins against charity by both sides made the Imperial City lose its favor with God. We Easterns celebrate in our calendars the occasions during which the Theotokos' intercession and protection prevented the capitulation of the city. I have to wonder why she didn't send us her aid on that fateful day and period when the East fell to the Turks, and shortly before the West fell to the Protestant revolt.

More proof that sin has its temporal effects.

In IC XC
Samer

[Isn't it wonderful to dream and plan for the great day when we are One. God speed this day!

When the inevitable Great and Holy Council is called,]

Dear Monk Elias,

Your aspirations echo that of St. Leopoldo the Capucin, who was probably one of the best friends the East could have had from the West.

In IC XC
Samer

Dear Samer,

Re: why the Theotokos did not send Her aid East and West.

I guess God works in mysterious ways.

The Turkish Yoke produced many New Martyrs - the Ukrainian Orthodox Church just recently received St Gregory V the Patriarch into its Calendar. Great spiritual fruits were produced in that terrible time.

And, in the West, it was the Redemptorist St Clement Hofbauer who said, "The Germans became Protestants because they wanted to live as Christians."

The way I see it, anyhow . . .

Alex

Speaking of martyrs Alex, isn't it about time that East and West, Orthodox and Catholic, canonize that great Christian martyr, Emperor Constantine XI? I wonder if icons of him have ever been painted.

In IC XC
Samer

Very true. Until the fall, at least we had constant efforts to bring about union. After the fall, any act on the part of the Orthodox towards union would have been treason.

K.

[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 04-26-2001).]