www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Patriarch Lubomyr?

I've been reading posts on this forum about Patriarch Lubomyr Husar.

I had always read that he is Major Archbishop Lubomyr Husar (and Cardinal).

I went to the UGCC web site and there he is as Major Archbishop Lubomyr Husar.

Please inform me as to what his curent title is.

Thanking you in advance.

Paul

Over the summer the bishops of the UGCC met and they formally declared the church a Patriarchate, hence Lubomyr I is Patriarche of the UGCC.

At the site, sometimes the mention him as Patriarch in Ukrainian.

In addition the liturgical books of the UGCC commerate him as Patriarch. The UGCC has been waitng for official confirmation as Patriachate since Patriarch Josyf was given that title by his Synod. The title "major archbishop" was created by the Vatican as a way of giving the UGCC patriarchal status without actually giving the title of patriarch and upsettng Moscow. Hopefully, the Pope will confirm the title for them soon.

In Christ,
Lance

I will stay tuned...

Actually, our official liturgicons mention Major Archbishop, not Patriarch.

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter

Subdeacon Peter,

The Liturgicon for the Eparchy of St. Josaphat in Parma (and used by other Eparchies) with an imprimatur from Patriarch Myroslav does have Patriarch.

In Christ,
Lance

dear Paul:

My 2 bits...

Bottom Line: our Holy Synod declared that the primate of the Greco-Catholic Church of Kyiv and All Rus' is a Patriarch on at least 2 [count'em] TWO occasions [recently and in the early 1990s].

We have informed the Church of older Rome of this.

How they react is their business [in the Lord].

How WE REACT IS OUR BUSINESS!

We can take ourselves seriously as an "ecclesia sui iuris" or, in defiance of Canon Law and Vatican II, we can still presume to take our marching orders from the dicasteries of another Church.

Clearly, I think we should take seriously the jurisdiction and spiritual governance of our Holy Synod as the hierarchical entity that has pastoral care for our Church, rather than wait upon bureaucrats in another Church - who may well have discerned well but according to their own criteria and for their own purposes. We must follow the diakrisis of our Church and its Synod.

Of course, His Beatitude, being the humble and kenotic person that he is will not swagger around insisting that he be commemorated as whatever. But, heck, apparently even the Basilians are commemorating him as Patriarch, and they were the hardline holdouts, so...

Besides which, as you can see from the news item at the UGCC website, we are building a "PATRIARCHAL Sobor" in Kyiv. And I am pretty sure we ain't buildin' it for His All Holiness Alexei!!!

Having said that, of course, these matters of Patriarchates, autocephality, and autonomy are never easy, simple, or straight forward.

A quick glance at Church history will reveal that the establishment of many patriarchates and autocephalous churches have been or are controversial, including the establish of Constantinople and the present autocephalous status of the OCA in the view of some jurisdictions which for some reason don't want to recognize it yet without some other procedures first.

As for the "Cardinal" thing, I just find that too weird for words, imho. But again, he's a practical and humble guy, and he's not going to make trouble. On the other hand, he together with His Beatitude Patriarch Gregory 3 and Pope JP2, has initiated a process to explore, clarify, etc. the "whole Patriarchal thing" [i.e. relations between Patriarches including the Patriarch of Older Rome], which will of course resolve the Cardinal anomaly vis a vis the Orthodox Churches in Communion with Rome.

herb

Dear Friends,

Regardless of approval or confirmation from Rome, I'd bet that the last time Patriarch
Lubomyr and Pope John Paul II met the two smoked cigars in celebration of the new
born baby, the Patriachate of Kyiv and All Rus'.

The point of all of this church office stuff is this:

"Go, therfore, and make diciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you..." (Mathew 28:19-20a)

I think I'll smoke a cigar too :p

Praised be Jesus Christ!

Paul

Dear Herb,

Not at all weird. Cardinal is an office created by Rome to elect Popes. Except for that, every Cardinal goes about his day job.

Guess what? Lubomyr Husar has a day job --- Patriarch. Its better to hold the post of Cardinal, so we at least have influence in the Vatican conclave.

All the heads of Eastern Churches should be part of that meeting --- they all should be Cardinals, including Metropolitan Basil, in addition to their day jobs.

Actually, Cardinal Husar has refered to himself as a troublemaker on at least one occasion, but he might have been qouting someone else.

Have a Blessed Day !!!

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

In our eparchy, although most parishes were already commemorating him as Patriarch, the bishop asked that Lubomyr be commemorated as Patriarch at every Divine Liturgy.

If lex credendi, lex orandi holds true as we believe, and we pray in the Liturgy for him as Patriarch, and we commemorate him as Patriarch, then he is Patriarch.

The Synod just needs to send the notice to Rome indicating their selection of Lubomyr as Patriarch and indicating the desire of the UGCC to be in communion with the successor of Peter. We have elected him Patriarch. That's done. Notifying Rome would be the next and last step.

As the primus inter pares, the Pope should be notified of the decision of the Synod, and the Patriarch elected should state his desire of communion with the successor of Peter. We don't need to wait for Rome to select the Patriarch. That would be no different than any episcopal appointment of a Roman Catholic bishop by Rome, which is standard practice for the Latin Catholics. We are not Latin Catholics.

It's not for Rome to select the Patriarch, but to abide in love and communion with her sister churches "sui iuris". In the present climate I don't really think Rome would reject communion with the UGCC nor the selection of Lubomyr as Patriarch. Not when Rome has such issues as the problems with the lawsuits and hierarchy here in the US relating to the current scandals.

Dear Lance,

Do you mean the "Sacrifice of Praise" translation? Well, it may have commemoration of Patriarch (you obviously know better as I have not seen this book), but both Ukrainian liturgicons (the 1968 and 1988 translations) mention our "Father and Head" as Major Archbishop. Which liturgicon is "more important"? Well, you won't tell me the Parma one.

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter

Dear Friends:

My two cents..

When the UGCC Patriarchial Cathedral of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ in Kyiv is completed all Ukrainian Catholics will be commerating Patriarch Lubomyr as Patriarch.

Paul, I will join you for that cigar .

Not quite. "Lex orandi, lex credendi" hardly applies to such things (status of our "Father and Head" is not a matter of faith, is it?). And one must have courage to accept the title, office ministry he's to fulfill. Could be a hierarch, who signs himself as "Major Archbishop", a true Patriarch?

In fact, the Synod did otherwise - Kyr Lubomyr was elected as MAJOR ARCHBISHOP and requested CONFIRMATION from Rome according to the CCEO.

Oh, what's a pity you're not our Synod! However, the Synod did everything otherwise and our "Father and Head" has done everything according to that synodal policy.
Just compare two signatures: Kyr Joseph's (Slipyi) since 1975 and Kyr Lubomyr's since 2001. And make your own conclusions.

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter

Dear Friends,

Well, Subdeacon Peter has raised some important points.

I want to critique and attack them, but I don't know how!

Can anyone critique and attack the Subdeacon for me?

Alex

Dear friends,

I am not contrary to the erection of an Ukranian Patriarchate but I consider that those who are conmemorating the Ukranian Major Archbishop like a patriarch are deliverately ignoring the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Catholic Churches. According to the canon 57 the erection of a Patriarchal Church is reserved not to the synod of a given Eastern Catholic Church but to the supreme ecclesiastical authority (the Roman Pope).

Can. 57 - � 1. Erectio, restitutio, immutatio et suppressio Ecclesiarum patriarchalium supremae Ecclesiae auctoritati reservatur. � 2. Titulum unicuique Ecclesiae patriarchali legitime agnitum vel concessum tantum suprema Ecclesiae auctoritas immutare potest. � 3. Ecclesia patriarchalis intra fines proprii territorii habere debet fixam sedem residentiae Patriarchae in civitate principe, ex qua Patriarcha titulum desumit, si fieri potest, constitutam; haec sedes transferri non potest nisi gravissima de causa, de consensu Synodi Episcoporum Ecclesiae patriarchalis et habito Romani Pontificis assensu.

I do not like at all the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Catholic Churches I am even contrary to the idea of a Eastern Code of Canon Law promulgated by the Roman See but I think that we should not ignore it. If Eastern Catholics do not like it they must tell Rome that they do not like it or that they do not accept it any more and that they whant to change it or to write a new one based not in the Code of Canon Law (of the Roman Catholic Church) but in the canons of the Ecumenical Councils and the canonical tradition of the Eastern Churches. To ignore the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Catholic Churches will not solve the serious canonical problems created by this code.

Yours in Christ,

Francisco