www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Union with Rome reconsidered

A "uniate mentality", a call for the "conversion" of the brethren and to come back to the "true Church", whether Orthodox or Catholic, is built upon an ecclesiology in which there is an absolute equation between one's own community, either Catholic or Orthodox, and the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

Bishop Kallistos Ware has pointed out that the office of the "Synodikon of Orthodoxy" used on the first Sunday in Great Lent contains more than sixty anathemas against different heresies and heresiarchs. More than a third of these anathemas date from between the eleventh and fourteenth centuries, a period in which doctrinal disagreements between East and West had emerged clearly into the open. There is one unexpected omission in the anathemas: there is no reference made to the "errors of the Latins", no allusion to the filioque controversy or to papal claims. This omission is an indication of the curious imprecision which has prevailed between Eastern Orthodoxy and the See of Rome.

At the Council of Florence in 1438-39, Greeks and Latins from the outset treated each other as members of the same Christian Church, albeit mutually alienated. Neither side required the other to do penance as schismatics or heretics; nor was a formal act of reconciliation to the Church required. Each side acted towards the other as if there a schism within the Church, not a schism of one side from the Church. The preamble to the decree of union stated: "For the wall, which divided the Western and the Eastern Church has been removed **from our midst** [emphasis is mine]." As Bishop Ware has noted, the "wall" is inside the Church. There is no "receiving back" of one side by the other, since both were already within the catholic Church of Christ. The reunion council did no more than make explicit an underlying unity which had never been wholly destroyed.

Dear Neil,

Thanks for your feedback concerning our 'marketing campaign.

(1) I do not agree with you about mass writing to the Vatican. The Vatican knows that 90% of the UGCC membership is pro-Patriarch. The other 10% either really don't care or are not sure what the Patriarchate is or how it will affect them. I'm not sure we can ever get the second group on board - that's just human nature with any group dynamics.

The Vatican is aware of these statistics so it's safe to say that having a Vatican 'bean counter' confirm what they already know is a waste of time for both the people sending the letter and those counting them.

SOME select letters, such as from people who suffered directly at the hands of the communists or the Russian Orthodox Church are worth writing. Such letters should be sent to the Vatican via registered mail to ensure that the comments are received and noted.

(2) I would agree that petition are not as good as letters, but then not everyone can write good informative convincing text.

The compromise solution will be a postcard writing campaign which will have a choice of 3 - 5 pre-writen texts for the sender. We may have pictures of our WW2 era martyered saints with blood stains on them for effect. The sender will have to put their name address on the postcards and sign them. Then the sender just mails them.

(3) Sorry Neil, but I think you are wrong here too. If we send letters fully explaining the plight of the UGCC, we may at very least get our side of the story heard by many non Vatican hierarchs, which I believe is not happening now.
If only 10% of the Cardinals take note of our campaign, then I can say that we succeeded.

I believe that your feelings here are very American-centric. There are many European hierarchs who are much more sympathetic to the UGCC cause already.

We may also decide to place ads in Greek community newspapers to get the message to the average member of the Orthodox Church. I believe working bottom up is always the solution. IMHO, I believe that if the average Greek American knew what was going on, they would be revolted by the hypocracy of their bishops. I'm sure you have read some of the responses I got to calling the EP the EP of 'Istanbul, Turkey'. Does not go over well does it.

(4) Sorry Neil, but you are way off on this one.

The US government remains VERY INTERESTED in all nation building affairs of the Ukrainian people, including it's independant church life.

Many senior government officials and people of note have and continue to speak positively about the need for the Ukrainian Churches 'chart their own courses'. For example, Madeleine Albright and US Ambassador Pascual have spoken at the Ukrainian Greek Catholic University and at the Kyiv Mohylanska Academia about the need of the Ukrainian Churches to affirm themselves.

All of our UGCC hierarchs were welcomed as church LEADERS at the White House by various US presidents. I can send you some great pictures. My favority is Patriarch Ioseph Slipij with US president Gerald Ford.

Canadian Prime Ministers have always been very positive to the nation building needs of Ukraine. Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker of the early 1960's played on the Ukrainian Teacher's School soccer team when he was a student. As Prime Minister he obviously had the ear of the Ukrainian community and did everything possible for them.

Canada was the first western democracy to recognize Ukraine's independance in 1991. Ottawa's mint printed Ukraine's first currency (coupons), stamps, passports, and other government documents (no - not at the Basillian's press ). The first non-Soviet history books for Ukrainian University Students were printed at the University of Toronto and sent to Ukraine, etc.....

The current Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin was elected to the Parliment from an area in Montreal with many UCGG members (LaSAlle - Emard). Do you really think that we would be wasting our time in approaching him regarding the Patriarchate - election year or not ?

(5) I do not totally agree with you on this one either. "The people who have the decision in their HOT LITTLE HANDS" is the problem Neil.

Frankly, I think that some of the "hot little hands" you mention (not RC) have been 'buttered' or 'greased' by a rich mafia north of Ukraine and hence their stance.

In conclusion:

A C T I V I S M - will be the solution.

For example: chaining ourselves to every Vatican Embassy around the world will bring immediate attention to our cause.

Another example may be to hand out information concerning our church to GOC members after services will get the 'RIGHT' message out soon enough.

Over-explained and under-understood, as usual.

Greg,

Always happy to interject myself into a Ukrainian topic, it helps me to perfect my skill at ducking - useful when playing dodge-ball with the kids .

Yes, but being "pro" and bothering to take that extra step of writing are two different things. Look at any nation's history, if a high percentage of an electorate are percieved to be "pro" or "con" on an issue, but don't go the extra mile and write to those in power or vote in an election, politicians always feel free to ignore them.


I agree with you here, though a misspelled, grammatically compromised letter from the heart can go a long way. Although it still offers the opportunity to be compromised, I agree that a postcard campaign is better than taking the petition route.

I agree with you on the advantages of getting the attention of the cardinalate. However, as to hierarchical interest generally - European versus American - I'd hardly describe myself as American-centric. We are all aware of how little concerned many American hierarchs are with our Churches; I hardly think this issue will resonate differently with them.

European hierarchs may be a different story (e.g., they might see that establishment of a Ukrainian Patriarchate will increase the need for Ukrainian priests back home in the Ukraine and assist in getting those married priests withdrawn from their diocesan territory - sorry, couldn't resist that one - Attention Alex, it was a joke :p ). Seriously, though, I do think that Europan hierarchs might be more attuned to the spriritual and psychological importance of such a decision to the Ukrainian people. I consider the majority of American hierarchs to be too self-focused to care.

I disagree. There are unquestionably career diplomatic personnel in the State Department who have a heartfelt interest in the issue. As to the average politician, I find it doubtful.

Madeline Albright is a special case. Her own East European ancestry unquestionably is a factor that would influence her thinking.

As to photos at the White House, with all due respect to the UGCC hierarchy, photo ops at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are a dime a dozen. Never let it be said that they assure any level of interest on the part of our civil hierarchy. You can be Miss Idaho Potato and share redeyes with George.

No, I don't. The Canadians are a different story. Ukrainian immigration to Canada is alive and well and your people are a viable constituent entity within the Canadian nation. Additionally, I think Canadian politicians are generally a less-jaundiced group than their brothers and sisters south of what used to be the invisible border.

(You're preaching to the choir here. I am a Canadianophile and was even before my wife crossed the border to the US. I remember well that, during the Iranian hostage crisis, it was a Canadian diplomat who risked his own life to save and assure the escape of American diplomatic personnel. Besides, you folks gave us my favorite television journalist - Ted Koppel . )

No comment on the merits of chaining, except that I think it's likely to produce an "after the sports and weather" 30 second closing curiousity news item. As to the latter, with all due respect to our brothers and sisters of the Orthodox Churches, I think you overestimate the amount of caring. You might get a positive response from doing it at EC parishes though.

Think we'll have to agree to disagree on the mass marketing techniques.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Neil,

The last several US governments have been very pro Ukrainian independance. In fact up until 9/11 Ukraine was the third largest recepient of USA foreign aid, after Israel and Egypt. How many dimes are there in hundreds of millions of dollars ?

The USA and Canada have been both training thousands of ex-Soviet Ukrainian officers at various secret military instalations in North America for their eventual incorporation into NATO. All ex-Warsaw member countries have been invited to train here, but not the Russians.

The voting block of Ukrainian Americans is NOT the reason for this American federal government support (I wish it was ) in most areas of the USA - there may be a few exceptions. Clearly there are significant OTHER reasons of national interest for the USA to be suporting Ukraine with such large foreign aid.

One of the main reasons why the USA government would like to see a Kyiv Patriarchate is that the ROC is very anti-American.

A good example of the recent anti-Americanism by the Russian Orthodox Church would be their ongoing 'fight' with the American council for Freedom (I'm translating from Ukie so it may be a bit different in English). The ROC actually forcefully evicted the American (US government) group from their offices in Kyiv using the pretext that the buildings belonged to the 'Kyiv Monastery of the Caves'. The US Embassy has been in an ongoing battle with the ROC ever since. This is but one example of the ongoing open conflicts.

Every American foreign policy think tank, advocates national independance, church Patriarch included, for Ukraine.

Patriarch Lubomyr Husar of the UGCC would be a friend of the US government and it's organizations. Given the above situation, which scenario do you think the USA government would like to see in the NEAR future ?

Hritzko,

So if ya'll are going to break with Rome, which Ukrainian jurisdiction are you planning on hooking up with? As soon as a Patriarch declares himself it will be declared null by the MP, and I doubt the EP will recognize it either, which leaves you what? Neither Orthodox -by the common standard of canonicity- nor Catholic. You'll be the Ukrainian Lone Ranger Patriarchate and one of our favorite posters will have to change his screen name!

The UGCC will not break with Rome. The UGCC hierarchs will simply declare a Patriarchate which is in full communion with Rome.

The Moscow Patriarch will huff and puff, and give the Roman Catholics a hard time in the Russian Federation. Then the international Christian community will come to the aid of the Catholics in the Russian Federation.

The UGCC will probably then seek some form of union with the UOC-KP and the UAOC to form one of the largest Orthodox churches in the world.

After the federal elections take place in Ukraine, the new government will take a more realistic assesment of church adherance and come to the 'Taft' conclusion: "Eastern Church statistics are an oxymoron", and the 'real' Orthodox church in Ukraine is the new super sized one in union with Rome.

Apostolic churches will begin to recognize the new super sized Ukrainian Orthodox church in union with Rome, and it's Kyivan Patriarch.

Hritzko

Greg,

Ukraine and the UGCC are not one and the same. This interlocking of Church and nation is one of the reasons why so many prophesize the demise of the Churches of the East.

"We don't like them, so we should/must like you"
. That's one of the worst premises on which to expect support. More likely, it seems to me, is "We don't like them, but why do we care about you?"

Greg,

I really don't think they care. Look at the Mid-East. Do you see anyone from the US gov't falling over the Catholic or Orthodox Patriarchs there, despite all of the efforts/initiatives for peace that they have advanced individually and collectively?

Many years,

Neil

Dear Neil,

Thanks again for your insight and comments.

You are correct in stating that Ukraine and the UCGG are not the same. May I also add for those who are not aware that the Roman Catholic Church and Italy are not the same, that the Mormons and the United States are not the same, that the Anglican Church and England are not the same, that the Lutheran Church and Germany are not the same, etc.....

The UGCC is based in Ukraine and it's Patriarch Lubomyr Husar now resides in Kyiv. The UGCC is the heir to Greek Catholic Union of 1596. There is a new Patriarchal Sobor and administrative complex presently under construction. The church will remain in full communion with Rome.

'God, nation, and culture' has been the formula for survival in the diaspora and the underground. Many of our diaspora bishops have had a very difficult time trying to keep our particular faith alive and distinct for the eventual rebirth of the UGCC in Ukraine.

Today the UGCC is open to all Americans of good Christian faith. I'm confident that many non Ukrainians would be facinated not only by the faith but by missionary work in Ukraine and beyond it's borders.

The demise of the UCGG has been predicted on many occassions. In fact, in 1989 Gorbatchev, the then president of the Soviet Union, declared that "there was no Greek Catholic Church on Soviet territory". He was so confident of his remarks that he was able to convince the Politburo (Soviet National Assembly) that it could be legalized because there really weren't any adherants. Today in the Ukrainian Republic there are over 5 million UGCC adherants and 1 million in the diaspora.

The eventual unifications of the various Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, a spread into Belarus, Russia, and other former Soviet Socialist Republics, will ensure that the church becomes much larger before as you predict it's "prophetic demise".

You state that the premise of support for the UGCC by the USA government is: "We don't like them (ROC), so we should / must like you (UGCC)". Perhaps this is YOUR interpretation, but clearly it is NOT what I stated. Here is a better interpretation of what I have stated:

(1) Various USA government agencies have been harassed by the ROC. :

(2) The UGCC is on very friendly terms with the Americans (remember the photo ops we spoke about ).

Although you may think that this is "one of the worst premises on which to expect support" this has been American foreign policy for decades. The disproportionate and generous foreign aid, the NATO military assistance, and other support from the United States, Canada, Britan, Italy, etc.. IS, contrary to what you say, indicative of the fact that they do care about all aspects of Ukraine, it's people, it's economy, churches, social life, etc...

Patriarch Husar and the UGCC episcopate act like a Patriarchate and in many ways have already been recognized as such. For example, Patriarch Husar has been a guest speaker of the American Conference of Catholic Bishops. Also the elite of Germany's Government and Catholic Church have made him a guest of their annual conference. When French, Austrian, Italian, Polish, and other national Cardinals visit Patriarch Husar, they treat him as the head of a national Church (ie: a Patriarch).

I do agree with your comments that the USA government IS NOT falling over Catholic or Orthodox Patriarch in the middle east. These patriarchs represent so few people that it would be foolhardy to believe that through them, the West could bring democracy and progress to these people. The USA government will have to find peace through the Muslim faith in this part of the world.

Hritzko

Greg,

But, you rely heavily on Ukraine's national identity, in combination with her ecclesial identity, as a reason why support is likely to be on the side of a patriarchate for the UGCC.

The analogy is lacking. The American government can readily be convinced to care that Ukrainians be free to worship as they choose; to expect that it will care about the hierarchical structure under which they do so is a stretch.

I'm not prophesizing the demise of the UGCC, merely stating that a major risk to all of our Churches, as has been discussed so often before on this board, is their dependence on continued growth only within their historically-served communities and ethnicities. To inextricably bind the future of a Church to the future of a nation runs the real risk that the Church eventually becomes a foil for or tool of the nation; to predicate that a nation's future is inherently dependent on that of a Church which serves its people speaks poorly for the nation. In either instance, appeal to the unchurched, the mis-churched (new categorization, I just made it up, could you tell ?), the curious, the seeking, is lessened by a sense that the potential for welcome and acceptance isn't there, because "we're not one of them" (as has been raised on this board any number of times by persons seeking to become members of Eastern parishes).

Remember Miss Idaho Potato

You're mixing nations and Church again.

He is the head of a Church (i.e. a Major Archbishop). A "national" Church ? See my concerns above.

Greg,

The Maronite, Syriac, Melkite, and Armenian Catholic Patriarchs, together with the Syriac and Antiochene Orthodox Patriarchs, not infrequently speak out as a group on issues of peace in the Middle East. The 4 Catholic hierarchs together represent approximately 4.8 million faithful in the Middle East and the diaspora combined; that number does not include the faithful of their Orthodox brothers. That's not an insignificant number; granted, we start from a sterotyped base of ethnicity that is less appealing to American consciousness :rolleyes: .

Keep in mind, my brother, that I support the idea that the Ukrainian Church should be headed by a Patriarch (or, alternatively, that the concept of 2 Byzantine Patriarchs, one of the Greek and one of the Slav Tradition should be adopted). My issue is my firm belief that, if it is to happen, it will be because Rome finally decides that this is as it should be - the opinion of Orthodoxy notwithstanding; I don't believe it will come about because the US government will take on the issue as a cause celebre. Basically, it will happen when and if God wills it.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Neil,

Yes, but the idea of a national Church is still strong, especially in the Ukie homeland.

And it is still strong in North America.

I agree that the Eastern Churches must adapt and be welcoming etc. But save for some, most of the Eastern Churches just aren't ready for that as yet.

And ultimately the argument that "Well, if they don't, they'll disappear" seems to run off them like water - so intimately connected nation and church is.

Ultimately, the best thing, I think, would be to have an American Church where the "church-nation" model can be reborn here.

But the U.S. is part of "the West" and I just wonder to what extent can any Eastern Church ever hope to be a mainstream Church of the West?

Finally, the issue of the UGCC Patriarchate has to do with Rome's politics with the East.

I think we need to affirm that and just get on with life afterwards.

Politics is what lies at the heart of the entire "Uniate" project spear-hearded by Rome at one time or another.

The views of Russian Orthodoxy on this matter DO matter to Rome.

Alex

Dear Neil,

Again, thank you for your comments and advice.

President John F. Kennedy of the United States of America interceeded on the behaf of the Vatican to have our UGCC patriarch confessor Ioseph Slipij released from a Soviet Siberian hard labour concentration camp where he had spent 18 long years. The Ukrainians couldn't get him released. The Vatican couldn't get him released either.

President Regan of the United States of America was openly critical of the Russian Soviet's and their treatment of the UGCC and the nation's dissidents. At the same time that he was telling Soviet Gorbatchev to "tear down the Iron Curtain" he attended on two occassions divine liturgy at the UGCC church in Washington D.C.. Perhaps this was just another photo opt....

I could give you many more examples of high level American and Canadian support for the establishment and support for the Churches of Ukraine, but I guess we will have to just 'agree' to 'dissagree' on this issue.

Rome has done much for the UGCC during it's darkest years, but clearly the time has come to create a Patriarchate which can begin re-evangelizing the Slavic people to their Orthodox Christian faith. This will not happen through the Latin church or via the current ROC. Rome has no illusions about this.

Patriarch Husar remains the most popular figure in Ukrainian Church life because he acts the faith and attempts to bring peace and harmony to the land. Now compare this with our neighboor to the North who refuses to admit his churches CONTINUED involvement with the communists and their allies over the past decades.

The Kyivan Patriarchate will also serve Greek Catholics from many neighbooring nations, and the western world (USA included). There is ample evidence of this already happening. There will generations of growth before there is a decline, it there ever is.

There is no wish that the UGCC become a tool of the nation, much like the ROC is one for Russia. Patriarch Lubomyr Husar has indicated on many occassions that he wants the Churches to develop independantly from the government.

I'm glad to hear that the Christian churches found in the 'Muslim world' are doing fine. My point is that these churches will be a minority for a long time to come and not an effective vehicle for Western influence on that part of the world.

I believe that the Holy Father would like to see the establishement of a Kyivan Patriarchate. The Holy Father said "Kyiv is the cradle of Slavic (Eastern) Christianity" during his visit to Ukraine. At very least there will be a tacit quiet approval. At very best there will be an establishement of a Patriarchate. My belief is that this will happen after the national elections in Ukraine.

Hritzko

Remember, in Orthodoxy the concept of a Patriarch is very different than in Catholicism. The Archbishops of Cyprus, Greece and Albania (for example) have the title of "Beatitude" and are the primates of their respective churches. But every true bishop of a diocese is equal within the confines of their diocese. The concept of "superjurisdiction" or some primate having jurisdiction over another bishop is a Western Christian concept. It goes against the Apophatic and Eucharistic Theology of the Orthodox East.

Just my "Three Cents"