www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Ukrainian Patriarchate

This was tongue in cheek, Hritzko. It is difficult on a forum like this to communicate that, as I seem to have left out the or the :rolleyes: . That was not submitted as a serious reason.

And I will agree, even the most latinized bishops have promulgated the wish of the Synod that His Beatitude Lubomyr, while he has not himself accepted the title, nor refers to himself with that title, be commemorated as Patriarch.

You yourself partly identified the problem, with the various viscitudes of russophilism, latinization, etc. present amongst the hierarchy. Those polarizations are still very present and very real. The memory of the Danylak affair is still fairly recent history.

I would posit that neither the KP or UAOC hierarchy has those profound of philosophical differences between each other as does our UGCC hierarchy. At least not with basic issues of being faithful to the liturgical tradition of our forefathers that we still grapple and struggle over.

That being said, in lieu of His Beatitude's as well as Cardinal Kasper's recent comments, I am not optomistic about our bishops acting in accord to proclaim the Patriarchate. Again, to vote unanomously to ask Rome for something is one thing, to vote to act independently as a Church sui iuris and just do something without being on our knees asking it from Rome is completely another.

It is clear the Pope won't act without Kasper's fiat, Kasper doesn't want this to happen at all, and His Beatitude is comfortable going to Kyiv and waiting for Rome to decide. Add to that the indecision of possibly starting from scratch with a future non-Slavic Pope. We are caught, once again, in a neo-Ostpolitik.

Our bishops are unanimous in requesting the Patriarchate, I feel, because we are submitting completely to Rome in this. It is absolutely a no-risk and no-action position. We passed the buck to Rome. That is clear. Were we taking unilateral action without Rome's hand-holding, I can assure you, would be an entirely different situation with much dissent amongst the bishops.

I agree with the first part of your statement (the editing is mine).

BUT

Given the recent statements by the ROC-MP, the history of persecution of the UGCC by the ROC-MP, the militancy of the UGCC in Ukraine, and other indicators, our hierarchy will be forced to deal much sooner than later with the second part of your statement. In fact, IMHO we have already moved to part 2.

I think that Kobzar and Incognito are correct in stating that the Basillians understand that the UGCC, her adherants, and Ukraine have come of age. You must have noticed that the immigrants from Ukraine are demanding church and national solidarity from our existing emigree communities. The party lines (religious, political, social, etc..) we inherited from our parents (and/or grandpartents) are sometimes (but certainly not always) seen to be counterproductive to them.

If there are groups within our church who prevent us from becoming a recognized patriarchate, they will be 'teased out'. My belief, contrary to all of you is that they are limited. A Ukrainian Christian Democrat president would make a significant difference to the whole situation - think about it because the elections are later this year.