www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Very Interesting Statements

Just for the record, there are at least two hierarchs known as successors of Saint Peter: the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Antioch. Alexandria also claims a Petrine connection, by derivation from Saint Mark. Incognitus

Struck a nerve, have I?

halychanyn

Bob,

Can you post a reference to the article you posted (author, place published, etc.)? Also, can you post a link to the original article or text containing Cardinal Kasper�s quote (or at least a reference to it)? That would help us put his comments into perspective.

The author of the response certainly makes some valid points (that the West does not know the East). The author himself (or herself) seems to be equally unfamiliar with Catholic theology. The model of the Holy Trinity applies equally to Catholicism. Authority is certainly not based in theologies of wealth, political power or numbers of adherents. Almost all of what is written beginning with �In other words, authority in the Church belongs to the bearers of the Holy Spirit� until the end of the article is equally applicable to the Catholic Church and is found in her teaching.

Without a complete account of the cardinal�s words it is impossible to accurately understand his intent. I can guess, however, that he was referring to the difficulties of the ongoing dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. While Orthodoxy is a single Church united in faith it is also a union of independent local Churches. The reality of a lack of a single unifying structure means that Orthodoxy cannot currently speak with a united voice. This very much hampers her ability to proclaim the Gospel effectively.

Admin

Shlomo Axios,
I love your statement that I stole it and reformed it a bit. I think that anyone of us that belong to one of the Apostolic Churches could use it. Here is my reformed list:

I am an Apostolic, since the Catholic Church is an Apostolic Church;
I am an Episcopalian since the Catholic Church is an Episcopal Church;
I am a Disciple of Christ, as we Catholics are disciples of Christ;
I am a member of the United Church Of Christ, since the Catholic Communion is the united Church of Christ;
I am a member of the Church of God in Christ, since the Catholic Church was founded by Christ- who is truely Man and truely God;
I am a Baptist, since to join the Body of Christ (the Catholic Church) one must be baptized into it;
I am a Presbyterian, since all Catholic Churches have presbyters leading the congregation;
I am a Methodist, since the Divine Liturgies of the Catholic Church follow the doctrines outline by God and his Church;
I am a Pentecostal, since the Catholic Church was founded on the FIRST Penecost by Christ;
I am a Jehovah's Witness, since as a Catholic I witness to the life giving Salvation that Christ has brought us;

I am a Catholic since it is that Church in which you will find all that is necessary for Salvation.

If this is not copy righted may I send it on to my Church with props of course?

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Dear Halychanyn,

Since Theist Gal brought me in to this, I'll give it a shot!

Every Catholic bishop is a successor of St Peter in a wider sense. Some have said that every lay-person is so, especially when we confess: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God . . . and become "Little Peters."

Peter founded the See of Rome and other Sees as well.

But we are still left with the idea of a "Petrine Primacy" that was always situated in Elder Rome - even though it was shared with Constantinople as the "New Rome."

So there is truly more than one successor to St Peter in the sense that bishops and patriarchs are descended from St Peter (and the entire group of Apostles).

But conciliar decree (defining the universal primacy in Rome given its position in the empire), tradition, the fact that St Peter and St Paul were martyred there, the fact that Rome became a vibrant Christian centre, and the ever-developing sense of authority that came from the earliest bishops of Rome who often spoke out on behalf of the entire Church in matters of faith and practice - all these led to the veneration of Elder Rome as the unique successor of St Peter's authority.

And even the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils were sometimes rather widely enthusiastic about the Pope of Rome in their deliberations and declarations.

The fact was that having a strong "referree" in the person of the Western Pope was a bonus to the East in the ongoing intrigues between Emperor and Patriarch there.

But the East never had a problem honouring the Pope of Rome as the First Patriarch in the entire Church.

And neither did our St Volodymyr and the Kyivan Church that venerated Pope St Clement highly (as you know, Volodymyr declared him the Patron of his empire).

When the Kyivan Church wished to separate from Constantinople, it used a Relic of St Clement in the consecration of Met. Clement Smolyatych, invoking the authority of St Peter, whose disciple St Clement was.

It was on this basis that Moscow, who believed it took over Kyiv's Apostolic heritage, formulated the view of itself as the "Third Rome." In fact, the act above established Kyiv as a "Third Rome" on the basis of Petrine tradition.

And St Clement, as one of the earliest Popes of Rome, did in fact flex a lot of authoritative muscle in his day as the Bishop of Rome who spoke up on behalf of all Christians.

His Epistle (Clement I - I don't think Clement II is accepted as his) was not only widely read in the Church in general, it was once included as part of the New Testament Canon. St Clement is the probable writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews by St Paul.

In addition, the Eight Books of the Apostolic Canons, written by Clement were also included in the New Testament canon - the Ethiopian Church STILL includes them in their canon of scripture.

And the Liturgy of St Clement was once the universal Liturgy of the entire Church.

These things truly do indicate a very wide authority enjoyed by Clement as the direct successor to Sts Peter and Paul in the See of Rome.

And wherever he went, nomatter which community of Christians he visited, he was always greeted as the most senior bishop of the Catholic Church.

St Clement is truly one of the Apostolic Founders of the Kyivan Church and veneration of him in our UGCC was especially promoted by Patriarch Josef Slipyj, as you know.

Alex

Vel'myshanovyj pane Doktor:

You are, of course, correct in everything you say (what else is new ).

I remeber my Ukie school days when Rev. Onuferko discussed with us the fact that the faith accepted St. Volodymyr was BOTH Catholic and Orthodox in every sence becasue the Great Schism had not occurred.

That is why I have always promoted the idea of a Unified Kyivan Patriarch that recognizes commuion with both Rome and Constantinople (and if they don't like it and don't recognize us, well that's their loss).

Still, this does not detract from the argument that TG was making, i.e. that the Roman Pope is and can be the ONLY successor of Peter. As your own post points out, this is not in keeping with our traditions.

As for a strong referee - I also cannot argue with this. However, the tension between the Byanztine Emepror and the Patriarch of Constantinople is hardly something that one can imagine occurring in this day and age. If, God forbid, there is a serious crisis of Faith within our Church that requires intervention, fine. But, honestly, can you really see something like that happening?

I defend the Unia. I think, in the long run, history will show that it was a good thing for our people. (OrthoMan is really gonna take a run at me for saying that won't he?). But this does not detract from the concept that we have OUR Peters in the persons of His Beatitude Lumomyr and the members of His Synod.

Yours,

halychanyn

Dear Halychanyn,

Yes, in fact our Patriarch Lubomyr is in direct succession to the line of St Clement himself, from Clement Smolyatych and the Clementine tradition of our Church.

He is therefore a direct successor of St Peter as well.

I don't see anything wrong with commemorating the EP of Constantinople in our liturgy, after the Pope of Rome, and before our own Patriarch given our close historic ties to the City of Constantine.

The anathemas have been lifted, after all . . .

It was the Ukrainian Orthodox Basil Lypkivsky who said that "at one time in our history, the Unia could be said to have been justified. But no longer . . ."

As Prof. Doroshenko, an Orthodox historian wrote, the Uniate Church finally gained a foothold in the hearts of the western Ukrainians by the late 19th century and it became the national Church of Galicia, especially under Met. Andrew Sheptytsky.

The Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, although on the lookout for converts to Orthodoxy , respected the Ukrainian Catholics very much and never said anything antagonistic toward them.

He was, in turn, respected by the Galician intelligentsia.

Khrapovitsky's Russophilism was often overlooked since Russophilism was something some of our intelligentsia used to help increase East Slavic consciousness among our people at various times.

Alex

Gee, I don't see the Cardinal's statements as THAT negative. I tend to think he has come down to the Catholic world view that you need a central leader of all Christians for unity - and, clearly, the Orthodox world view is different.

Seems to me that the Cardinal was saying that, in the end, when you have to work with many different leaders within the same faith umbrellas, you are going to progess at different speeds in your dialogue. There isn't one Orthodox leader to talk to. That's true, I think.

I still go back to St. Paul in my own simplistic little way - I'm not a follower of this leader or that - of Peter, or Paul, or Sixtus, or of any of their successors. I'm a follower of Jesus. Okay, maybe that's the Orthodox end of my upbringing speaking for a moment - but I do practice Catholicism - and I do believe in the papacy. Someone has to try to lead a church as a human institution - there are day to day decisions to be made, faith teachings to be explained, moral positions to be taken, and you need a pope or a patriarch for that. But just one? More than one? I honestly dunno. It is beyond my feeble comprehension. I leave that to far greater minds than my own.

Dear Annie,

It is just that I wish Rome would use Eastern Catholics more in dealing with the Orthodox.

We understand the Orthodox better than Rome - and there are some very good reasons why I say that.

Rome really has little comprehension of the "sensitive zones" in its Ostpolitik. Relations between Rome and Orthodoxy are, today, at an all time low.

I think, sincerely, this is God's way of punishing Vatican bureaucrats who want to sweep Eastern Catholics under the carpet in this way or that - and especially in dealing with the Orthodox.

Alex

Alex,
While I think that is a good idea, I have a funny feeling that some Orthodox would rather talk to Rome than us.

Afterall if Uniatism is not the way to go, then what do we have to add to the dialogue?


David, the Byzantine Catholic

Dear Davidb,

Yes, but the Orthodox don't necessarily have to talk to us.

We can be used to sensitize Rome to a number of issues, not all of which have to do with religion, when dealing with Orthodoxy.

When Rome thinks that Orthodoxy is about religion only, then Rome displays its tactical and diplomatic ignorance.

And we Eastern Catholics just hate it when that happens, don't we?

And I've seen Fr. Prof. Peter Galadza and others participate in talks with Orthodox scholars etc.

They all seem to be getting on nicely.

A number of assumptions of yesteryear that Rome continues to make about the East have now gone out the window.

And so as RC-Orthodox dialogue . . .

Alex

Administrator writes:

[Can you post a reference to the article you posted (author, place published, etc.)? Also, can you post a link to the original article or text containing Cardinal Kasper�s quote (or at least a reference to it)? That would help us put his comments into perspective.]

The statement was contained in a press release from Cardinal Kasper awhile back and appeared on some of the Orthodox discussion groups. The response I posted was from the 'Orthodox Church In England' website.

I am trying (and also have others) looking for the entire statement and will post it as soon as I find it. I know its around I just have to find it.

Bear with me.

OrthoMan

Excuse my ignorance, but I have a question

It seems to be regarded as conventional wisdom that "uniatism" is not the way to go. But, as Cardinal Kaspar noted (and as many Orthodox posters here have reiterated), Orthodoxy is not unified in a hierarchical sense. Unified in faith, surely, but not in structure.

So here's my question: why isn't uniatism the way to go?

If thinking in terms of reconciliation between Catholics and "the Orthodox" breaks apart on the fissiparous nature of the Orthodox ecclesiology, then why not negotiate unity church by church?

Once again, I have no particular dog in this fight. I'm just seeking understanding.

[I defend the Unia. I think, in the long run, history will show that it was a good thing for our people. (OrthoMan is really gonna take a run at me for saying that won't he?).]

OrthoMan has already said about all he can regarding the subject. And has even been accused as being 'mean spirited' because of it.

I guess only time will tell. But first you guys have to figure out just what and who you are and what you are required to believe as such.

OrthoMan

Dear Pseudo-Athanasius,

"Uniatism" as such is justly condemned by the Roman Church - as well as Orthodoxy.

Historically, it involved a kind of ecclesial "poaching" on the part of Rome and a disrespect for the various Churches' jurisdictions and integrity.

Rarely did an entire Eastern Church unite with Rome, leaving one part of it "in limbo" and creating serious divisions and bad feelings among Christians of the same religious heritage.

In the case of the Union of Brest-Litovske, that union led to alienation and disruption not only within a Church, but a nation too.

That disruption exists to this day. It exists in my own family.

Uniatism is also justly condemned as a "mind-set" that led to both a "second class Catholic citizenship" mentality and a feeling of subservience with respect to the greater Latin Church. To be truly a "Catholic" was to model oneself as closely as possible to the Latin Church where Latin ritual, theology and canonical traditions became the measure of ultimate Catholicism.

Although we discuss Latinization a lot, it is, in fact, something that Rome didn't saddle us with.

Our own bishops saddled us with it as a result of a "uniate" mentality that considered that if we didn't imitate the Latins, we weren't Catholic.

In the case of the Union of Brest-Litovske the bishops convened clandestinely at Rome without informing the secular leadership of society - something that would not have been allowed in any Roman Catholic country for instance.

When the union was announced, it was because it was so clandestinely put together that even members of the aristocracy that actually FAVOURED a union with Rome, such as Prince Constantine Ostrozhki (once touted as a possible King of Poland) went against the Union of Brest (as ONE form of union with Rome) and then became defenders of the Orthodox Church.

(The Poles later removed his remains from the Kyivan Caves Lavra, as well as those of his son, Alexander, who joined him in the crusade on behalf of Orthodoxy, and had them burned - they thought the Orthodox Church wouldn't canonize them without their relics - a mistaken assumption).

The Unia of Brest-Litovske was, as RC historians readily admit, simply an experiment to see if that model of unity would work in bringing the Russians to union with Rome.

Er, no it didn't . . .

And the Union of Brest-Litovske (I don't how others under different Unions like it ) was clearly a matter of subjugating the Church of Kyiv-Halych under Rome - the idea of "communion with" was simply not in the cards - as our own church historians show, including Basilian historians (but they like the idea of being subject to Rome in every which way ).

In addition, and no matter who is to blame, the Eastern Churches tended to lose their own character and identity when in union with Rome.

Rome itself, in recent times, often demanded that the Eastern Churches remain faithful to their traditions - but our people felt that to be Catholic meant to be Latin Catholic.

I remember reading about the reaction of the Eastern Congregation when it found out that the UGCC in Galicia wasn't closing the Royal Doors at various points during the Liturgy.

Their reaction was one of consternation - by this time, Rome knew more about the Eastern traditions than we ourselves did.

And so Rome made efforts to contain this and other Latinizations.

But to little avail.

So "Uniatism," as far as the Union of Brest-Litovske is concerned, tends to mean, today, the subjugation of a part of another Particular Church by Rome (or it could be by another Church altogether) and the concomitant mentality of being second-class by the subjugated Church.

But we Ukies are fighting to take back our Church and get rid of our own inferiority complex.

The movement for a Patriarchate helps us achieve this and we are going ahead with it.

Rome is in a quandry with it because it wants us to be Eastern. For us, this, at the same time, means having a Patriarchate.

And for Rome, the UGCC Patriarchate is one more block on the path to negotiations with Moscow.

I'd hate to be a Vatican diplomat right now!

Alex