www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Rome says no go for UGCC Patriarchate

If the UGCC would begin direct negotiations with either of the two other Ukrainian Orthodox churches it would scare the Vatican and embarass the Papacy.

If the UGCC wants to make a move they should do it now, as a body. It would not help to have individuals leave piecemeal, that would dissipate the strength of what they are trying to accomplish.

It would be interesting to see how Rome would react to getting a notice from Kyiv with the indication that they are now in a state of impaired communion. They should call their seminarians in Rome to return to Ukraine to finish their studies.

The UGCC should act now, as a unit.

This situation could be resolved.

Dear Friends:

I do not share in the negative conclusion on the fate of the UGCC Patriarchate. It's not kaput!

What this "no go" signal from Rome simply means is that Pope John Paul II will NOT exercise his power to erect the Greek-Catholic Patriarchate, also centered in Kyiv, by recognizing UGCC's Major Archepiscopate elevation. This he can do without regard of the MP, the EP, or of any other Orthodox jurisidiction, or of World Orthodoxy for that matter.

Nobody here would envy the role, and the work, of Cardinal Kasper as the Pope's principal player in the Orthodox-Catholic off-and-on dialogue. He has to tread on eggshells, and on ecclesiastical egos, given the historical past of the jurisdictions (not even including the enduring national animosities) involved.

The fact that Patriarch Alexy II met, finally(!), with Cardinal Kasper last Sunday and, apparently, approved of the previous creation of an official working group to discuss all open issues between the ROC and the Catholic Church bodes well for the future of the UGCC Patriarchate. (See related story here [zenit.org] .)

A delicate issue such as the Kyivan Patriarchate takes a longer time to be resolved, to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Rome is on the side of the UGCC. There should be no equivocating on this fact. Expressing disgust, despair, and anger at this juncture is understandable.

But to publicly tell "Rome to go to hell!" is a bit overboard and could be a costly mistake.

AmdG

i dont understand..theres a patriarchal sobor cathedral church brand new being built in kiev correct? so doesnt that mean the ugcc is being elevated to a patriarchate?

Amado, nothing could be farther from the truth. Nothing personal, but this is only optimism. In reality, it is clear that the UGCC is a low-valued chip in the Rome-MP poker game. Period.

What you claim would be a "mistake" is exactly what needs to be done now. We waited patiently and had to endure the humiliation of the Quadripartite Commission and other Rome-orchestrated miscarriages of justice. May the memory of the sainted Patriarch Josyp and Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sterniuk) be with us as well as their intercession.

After nearly 500 years of very patiently waiting, of enduring one of the most vigorous persecutions suffered by any Christian group, excuse me, but this is hogwash.

Once again, we are at the mercy of Rome-MP Ostpolitik. Every bit as nefarious as that in the 1970s and early 1980s.

In what part of this are we to interpret that Rome is genuinely looking out for the UGCC and providing it with the respect it deserves, which Rome allegedly itself is supposed to give it as signs of concern for a Sister Church? (Slavorum Apostoli, Orientale Lumen, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, etc.).

While Rome is busy with its work of establishing dioceses within Russia, and tenderly negotiating with the MP, the UGCC is literally left out in the cold. Not even one UGCC representative present at the discussions with the MP pertaining to the UGCC.

Where is the concern from Rome you mention? Is the UGCC a church sui iuris or not? What does this mean? We apparently have no say or input regarding our future, and Rome seems fit to decide our future without involving our hierarchy.

Micheal is right. But unfortunately many of the UGCC bishops will not vote for an action taken without the explicit approval of Rome. That is the next stumbling block. One after another.

RISU is now also citing the AGI reports as authentic.

And I think some of us are starting to realize that Cardinal Kasper's "new hope" is not much more than agreeing to the indefinite supression of the UGCC Patriarchate, of which both he and his chief advisor Fr. Maj strongly agree.

I would not be so quick to rule out a UGCC Patriarchate yet. The Italian article interprets too freely the Vatican article which only states that the Orthodox opinion is being taken into consideration. The Vatican considered their opinion in 2002 and erected 4 dioceses anyway.

21-February-2004 -- Vatican Information Service

MOSCOW: CATHOLICS, ORTHODOX TO SET UP JOINT WORKING GROUP
VATICAN CITY, FEB 21, 2004 (VIS) � The following communique was released today by Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, who has been in Russia since February 16:


�On February 19, 2004 in Moscow, a meeting took place between the Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Patriarchate of Moscow, Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, Kirill, and the President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, Cardinal Walter Kasper. In the course of their conversations, the parties considered the matters at issue in relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, especially in Russia and in Ukraine. In particular, Cardinal Kasper confirmed that the Holy See had received the written response of the Russian Orthodox Church on the possible establishment of a Greek-Catholic Patriarchate in Ukraine, as well as the responses of all the local Orthodox Churches on this question.


�Cardinal Kasper indicated that the unanimous position of all the Orthodox Churches is being given serious consideration by the authorities of the Catholic Church. The Catholic party assured the Orthodox party that it is the wish of the Holy See to maintain and further strengthen positive relations with the Orthodox Churches. Both sides agreed that for the solution of specific issues in relations between the Russian Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches a joint working group should be set up, composed of representatives of both Churches who will examine these questions and make proposals for their solution.


�Participating in the meeting were Archbishop Antonio Mennini, representative of the Holy See to the Russian Federation, Bishop Brian Farrell, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Reverend Father Jozef M. Maj, official of the same council, the Vice-Chairmen of the Department for External Church Relations of the Patriarchate of Moscow, Bishop Mark Egoryevsk and Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, and Reverend Father Igor Vyzhanov, acting secretary for Inter�-Christian Affairs.

Dear Subdeacon Randolph:

Contrary to your estimation, the impending elevation of the UGCC into a Patriarchate could be the highest-valued chip on the ROC-RCC negotiating table, an ace in the hole (er, an ace in the open! )

Yes, the UGCC is a sui juris Church but it is also one of the Churches (the largest among the ECCs) in the Catholic communion, all of which, ideally and theoretically, should look up to the Pope, as Supreme Pontiff, for leadership and guidance.

Vis-a-vis Churches outside of our communion, the Pope, through the different dicasteries in the Roman Curia, addresses ecumenical endeavors which could conceivably forge Christian unity.

The UGCC has the authority and the power to conduct by itself such tasks but this should be viewed temporarily as secondary, or at least parallel to, the concerted and vigorous efforts of the Holy See, the latter being the veritable representative of the Catholic communion. Never mind that the job is being done through the auspices of the PCPCU.

Further, the UGCC issue, which has become corollary to the erection of Latin dioceses in Russia, was raised by the ROC against the Vatican, and not against the UGCC hierarchy.

Understandably, you and all our Ukie brethren here have a clearer grasp of the historical antecedents of this burning question. What I request, with humility, is for us not to be alienated in your quest for a Patriarchate befitting the dignity of the UGCC.

We are on your side, no matter what!

AmdG

I am not reassured in the least by either Amado's nor Fr. Deacon's posts.

There are two essential premises. One, which the Pope has publically stated, is that he will not sign off on anything related to the status of the UGCC without Cardinal Kasper.

Two, it is well known that neither Cardinal Kasper or his accomplice Fr. Maj support a UGCC Patriarchate. So, there are inherent roadblocks already built in. AGI intercepted not the Roman communique, but the actual internal notes from Maj/Kasper to the Vatican. I for one believe the AGI reports, as they are completely consistent with Kasper's tone and opinions on the establishment of the UGCC Patriarchate.

Even in the more ambiguous "official" communique that Fr. Deacon Lance has mentioned above, one can read the writing on the wall.

Absolutely no mention of any kind of input from the UGCC at any level of discussion, even as a postscript. Kasper "assured" the MP. How do you assure Alexei? ONLY by committing to the suppression of the UGCC Patriarchate.

If we could even get some glimpse from Rome that we have unique identity or personality outside of Roman cardinals, and that Rome was indeed willing to defend us and that identity instead of treating us as the crazy uncle no one wants to talk about, that would be more reassuring.

The "representitives" will only consist of the MP and the ROC. None from the Church whose fate is being decided by these two. They wouldn't even consider another Jesuit who is far more familiar and knowledgeable about the dynamic than anyone else, Fr. Taft. Why do I keep having flashbacks of the Quadripartite Commission through all of this???

Notice the continued use of "both sides", and as Joe Thur mentioned earlier, that pretty much throws all that gratuitous sui iuris stuff out the window, we are clearly and definitely second fiddle at best.

Even in the "new and improved" Eastern Code, the ultimate authority for erecting a new Patriarchate is held by none other than the Holy See. Forget about the pastoral and ecclesial concerns of the Church in question petitioning, it will ultimately be up to buearucrats in Rome who likely know little about the people, their culture, or their rite.

Along with Ostpolitik, Uniatism is alive and well, and this little exchange between Cardinal Kasper and Moscow is vivid evidence of both. I have spent far too much time and energy on this issue.

Whatever the Vatican discerns it must do, it shall do. We cannot control that, nor should we.

But shame on us, if we cannot be our own Church. If we cannot be a Church, then we do not deserve a Patriarchate, or rather, we should not have a Patriarchate - because we are not a Church.

As Kyr Lubomyr says, the establishment of a patriarchate is not necessarily up to Rome. I agree with the Mitrat Archimandrite Robert. It is up to us!

If we have to wait at the beck and call of one of our Sister Churches for this (even though it's head is first among equals), then we are not a Church. And if we are not a Church, then we are certainly not a Patriarchate.

A Patriarchate is not just an empyt honorific. It implies that we are at the very least an autonomous church (and hopefully, an Orthodox one at that). Let us decide once and for all, are we an ecclesia sui iuris or are we an ethnic subset of the real Church, the Latin one.

btw, this is the perfect time for us to be a Patriarchate since it will do minimum damage in ecumenical relations. Because really the MP are not in a moment of serious ecumenism. How could they be, sociologically? They just emerged from some 60-70 years of Communist oppression. Finally they get to breath free. Now they are about restoring themselves - they are busy, they are in an expansive mood, in building mode. Ecumenism is not their first priority. Ok, no problem, we can understand that. But that doesn't mean that we must stop being a church and serving the Lord.

And I can understand why the Vatican is doing what it must do publically. After we "establish" a Patriarchate (once again :rolleyes: ) Rome will deal with it. They're a big church now, they can handle it. And they will be able to handle the fallout from Moscow. (What's a little more fallout, given what we have now?)

Besides, everyone knows that when we have a united Kyivan Patriarchate, the UGCC Patriarch will the the first one to offer his resignation in favour of the Orthodox one. (This the Melkite Patriarch has offered any number of times, I believe).

As to what "serious consideration" means and the apparent veto given to the MP by the Vatican on this question, that I leave to more experienced people who can read between the lines (like the old experts at reading the subtle nuances of old Soviet press releases).

Happy Great Fast!

Herb

Let's get ready to return a lot of mail from the dicasteries! We can buy a "return to sender, no such major archbishopric here" stamp!

Herb,

Well put. I agree completely.

Perhaps there won' be a UGCC Patriarchate in the near future. But what use is it getting mad at Rome? Honestly, it's not Rome's job. The UGCC should take the initiative itself if it wants a patriarchate. All this talk about sui iuris ...it's all well and good, as long as it's backed up. Apparently it's not. Elect +Husar as Patriarch of the UGCC and send the notice off to Rome. What's the Vatican going to say? What can the Vatican do about it? Nothing. They'll bite their tongues and say congratulations.

But until the majority of UGCC bishops are in favor of a patriarchate (which they definitely should be), perhaps the Ukrainian Church isn't ready for a patriarchate. When Rome jumps in and does something, it gets bitched at for meddling in the affairs of a Church sui iuris. When it stays out of it, it gets bitched at for being insensitive and arrogant.

The Ukrainian Church should take action!!!

I look forward to the eventual erection of a UGCC Patriarchate, which will happen. the UGCC itself will decide when this will come to pass.

Good luck and happy fasting!!!

Logos Teen

Teen, you obviously are unfamiliar with the Eastern Code of Canon Law (CCEO), promulgated by Pope John Paul II.

In the CCEO, it is very clear that the Holy See MUST establish new Patriarchates. It is most definitely Rome's job if you believe in following Canon Law. Check it out.

And who wrote the CCEO? our bishops?

Canon Law always rests rather lightly on the Eastern Churches (this is hardly news). Moreover, as Joe Thur said - although I don't think he intended to - the Holy See MUST establish new patriarchates - this obligation on the Holy See derives straight from Orientalium Ecclesiarum of Vatican II. The Holy See has been dodging its plain duty for forty years now, and I'm not just talking about the Ukrainians.
Incognitus

Canon 57-1. The erection, restoration, modification, and suppression of patriarchal Churches is reserved to the supreme authority of the Church

57-2. Only the supreme authority of the Church can modify the legitamately recognized or conceded title of each patriarchal Church.

Yes, it most definitely IS Rome's job to erect new patriarchates according to the CCEO. I am no fan of the CCEO (surprised? ), but only for the benefit of those who think we are being too "hard" on Rome look at the legislation.

Rome clearly has to take the action to establish the UGCC Patriarchate if she wishes to comply with the canons she herself has established.

I think both points are correct. The UGCC holds its fate in its hands and the Holy See must eventually recognize the patriarchal status for legitimacy's sake. The true test must unfortunately wait until the next election of the UGCC's chief hierarch. If the Synod enthrones him without waiting for the Holy See's confirmation and the Holy See doesn't suspend communion with the UGCC, they have a patriarchate de facto. Eventually, the Holy See will recognize it.

Fr Deacon Lance

Fr. Lance:

I agree completely!

And ya know: MP I understand. And Rome I kinda understand.

What I don't understand are members of my own church who e.g. won't say "orthodox Christians" when it's right there in the book approved by Rome; won't do teplota when it's right there in the book approved etc.; won't excise the filioque when even the Vatican is doing it, etc. etc. because it's too "Moskowfily"; but NOW over the patriarchate will totally kowtow to the MP!!! :rolleyes:

the irony is laughable!

Herb

ps: the Great Canon tonight was to die for...(maybe I'm not doing it right, I shouldn't be enjoying it so much).