www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Are we an impediment to reunion?

Dear Friends,

One problem is that whenever we talk about primacy here, we tend to discuss it in a highly idealized fashion.

The main impediment to unity is really Rome itself and its desire to maintain a jurisdictional stranglehold on the EC Chuches, the UGCC in particular.

For all of Rome's talk about a Major Archbishop having the same jurisdictional powers as a Patriarch etc., Rome continues to appoint its own candidates to the UGCC hierarchy.

Actually, the UGCC is back to square one on this score.

At the time of Patriarch Josef Slipyj, whenever a new episcopal candidate was appointed by Rome without so much as a "by your leave" with respect to the old Hieroconfessor, the candidates, although not all, would travel to Rome and ask the Patriarch to confirm them directly.

We have a similar situation today, but it is doubtful if the new bishops will seek the confirmation of Patriarch Lubomyr.

If anything, the clock has gone backwards with respect to the Particular Rights of the UGCC, the largest EC Church.

No, the real impediment to unity truly is Rome herself.

Alex

And

Dear friend in Christ Alex,

You are very right about this.

+T+
Michael

I think I'm ready to jump onto the autocephaly bandwagon. But where do I jump?

CDL

Alex, whenever this had been discussed before in the context of the BCC, it was clear that there was much participation, including lay participation in selecting nominees whose names were then approved by Rome. If I understand you correctly the UGCC has no input in the process. Is the situation so dramatically different in the UGCC?

Ah, I found some things here [whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com] and here [whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com] that discuss the matter more precisely.

From the second link

I think one would simply need to reference the CCEO to acknowledge that this is simply not true. Canon 57 says:

It won't happen without Rome allowing it to happen, and raising a patriarchate will have a lot of repercussions (the quote is correct about that part).

Andrew

Part of the bone of contention is that many Orthodox DO see the Byz Caths (once Orthodox)as a 'subjugated people", and the 'bully pulpit' of the RC Pope as the 'bully' to those who were once Orthodox... (The Liturgy is OURs, but the insertion of the Filioque, at the Creed and the recognizing of the Pope, destroys the continuity of the original.) Of course, history would have nothing to do with the observation here , would it.?? Remember, the Russian empire was, at the same time, both so envied and dispised, by the West/west, that the only plan devised to bring her down, was the 'communist/bloshevik' re-education of her people...and of course, much bloodletting. Look to the historians, do you see much handwringing, and outcry from the Western powers, who either by overt or covert means supported this atrocity. Now, we have the Lvov seminary being moved to Kiev,...now that is like a finger in the eye to the once Orthodox center, and first baptised city of the Rus' people. Hmm, the Orthodox should have no trouble with that..! How do you think Rome would feel and react if some american evangelical group put up an ediface right in the middle of the Latin center of the universe, complete with 700 Club type 24 hour TV and Radio programming. Should be no problem there.
We are each called to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Yes, as Orthodox, I could remember the Bishop of Rome in prayers, but I dare not call the man or his office, quote..."holy papa"...that would be near idolatry to Orthodox theology and even , in my reading the history of the Church as a whole. Our Father (Otce Nash)is in Heaven, not in Rome. I face East at Liturgy, not to Rome, but to Jerusalem, the City of the Coming King, Christ God Himself. Why did the Sultan have the Eastern Gate sealed up...? He knew the prophecy, and fearing it , symbolically did so, obviously not for no reason at all. Is it opened yet? Maybe in our lifetime, who knows. Akin to that is the healing of east and west. Maybe in our lifetime. None of this I wrote is new, nor inflamatory, only a reminder of what is at stake to be changed.
S Nami Boh, S Bohom, Mikhailo

The Eastern Catholic Churches are self-governing, and as such they should not look for help constantly from Rome, nor should Rome intervene in their internal affairs. If anything the Eastern Churches should be more assertive of their own rights and do what they need to do in order to restore their ancestral traditions.

mike ross: [aka PA Hunkie]

Hope that's not some RO prejudice showing.

Be informed correctly that the Lviv Seminary has not been moved from Lviv - the UKRAINIAN GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH CENTER has relocated to Kiev where it rightfully belongs.

Slava Bohu!

Dear djs,

How are those two articles you cite indicative of something more precise?

The question remains - why should Rome have any say in the appointment of EC bishops even outside the "jurisdiction" of the Patriarch/Major Archbishop?

That Pat. Husar appointed a bishop in Ukraine and simply informed Rome was something that was not, as the article in question SEEMS to say, a right given by Rome.

Rome had to accept this as a fait accomplit, just as it had to accept the declaration of a new feastday for the translation of the relics of St Nicholas Charnetsky in the same way too.

The next step would be for the Synod to go ahead and confirm its own candidates for the episcopacy abroad and then simply inform Rome about this too.

One problem with such a revolutionary move would be that our Basilians et al. would probably object.

On the other hand, one way of getting around this is to simply not select Basilians or Redemptorists for episcopal positions. . .

It would seem that Ecclesial Particularity is like the Kingdom of Heaven in the Gospels - it must be taken by force too!

Alex

Dear Mike Ross,

The move of the UGCC centre from Lviv ("Lvov" is an outdate Russian name that is no longer applicable since the fall of the Soviet empire) to Kyiv has been interpreted as offensive by the Russian Church alone over there.

In fact, not only have the Ukrainian Orthodox, so woefully uncanonical, embraced their Ukrainian Catholic brothers and sisters in this, but the Georgian Orthodox were also present at the ceremony for the inauguration of the move etc.

This is not a "Catholic-Orthodox" struggle in the first instance.

It is a "Ukrainian independence-Russian domination" struggle being carried out at the final level where it still exists today - the level of the Church.

I have many Ukrainian Orthodox friends (including relatives). Relations between us have never been better.

In our religious discussions, I make no move to try and get them to become subservient to Rome, the only real issue that separates us.

No, I'm too busy talking with EC's as to why WE are subservient to Rome in the first place to bother . . .

Alex

Dear Alex,

True, but that's a big "if" (although I suppose that's better than a big "but").

As long as we're on the subject, would you agree or disagree with my comment that "those in the Antiochian Orthodox Church who use a western rite should have the option to remain in that church and continue using that rite"?

God bless,
Peter.

Plainly because they are more specific about the entire process involved and avoid glib characterizations like "stranglehold".

I see posts by you and others complaining here and elsewhere about the manner of appointment of UGCC Bishops in, e.g., America - did I just miss your posts in which you acknowledge the clock moving dramatically forward in the Ukraine. You say Rome "had to" accept his. What "Byzantine Silliness"; she didn't "have to", she simply did.

As the appointment in Philadelphia, let's agree that ths situation is different than in the Ukraine simply because of the substantial presense of other particular churches of the same rite. ISTM that the (more precisely) collaboration between Rome and the UGCC synod (btw why is the synod proposing those Basilians) on this matter is a healthy exercise of Primacy. Without out it we have all of the uncanonical multi-juridistional problems of the Orthodox in America without a structure to resolve much of anything. Indeed some Orthodox have pointed to just this type of problem as one where exercise of Primacy would be a plus.

As to whether this manner of accommodation to all of one's neighboring sister churches consitutes "subjugation", that's in the eye of the beholder. It is intersting to note, however, that the most virulent complaints from EO's on such matters are not about the subjugation, but the lack of subjugation of the UGCC by Rome.

The Pope's primacy does not involve appointing bishops outside of his patriarchy, and it is clear that the Eastern Orthodox Churches will never accept the idea that the Pope has the power to appoint bishops in their respective communities. Thus, it would be nice if the Pope, as a sign of good faith and ecumenical outreach, stopped appointing bishops in the sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches.

It would be nice if there were a recognition that the movement is undeniably in that direction, rather than only seeing that Rome is still involved in the diaspora. And to recognize that even in the diaspora there is a collaborative process. Those Orthodox who have discussed the need for primacy point to situations like these. To miss all of the details and to discuss this situation in the broadest, unqualified terms is a plain misrepresentation of the situation.