www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Presov and Mukachevo eparchies have new bishops

Dear Friends,

I see what I've missed as a result of my decision to go home and spend the evening with my wife!

Ethnic tensions notwithstanding, I wanted to think out loud about what the Administrator and Diak said about the Ukrainian Catholic Church and a possible role with respect to the Ruthenian Church.

First off, let's review the patriarchate thing, shall we?

The Administrator said that the Ukrainian Synod had no authority to establish its own Patriarchate - it had to be confirmed by another Church, either Constantinople or Rome depending on who one is in communion with.

From the Orthodox standpoint, I'm trying to remember a Patriarchate that was ever set up by Constantinople or other of the major Patriarchates directly. To the best of my recollection, the Russian, Serbian et al. Churches proclaimed themselves patriarchates, and then treated their Primates as such. Recognition by other Orthodox Churches came much later in most cases, in the Serbian case, I believe, four hundred years after the fact.

And yet, by acknowledging the ecclesial reality of these Patriarchates, no Orthodox Church ever QUESTIONED the reality of their Patriarchal status from the moment these Churches declared themselves so. There was never a question of canonicity etc. except of course in the modern situation of the Kyivan Patriarchate and some other Churches that want full autocephaly.

Does the Ukrainian Catholic Synod have the authority to declare its own Patriarch? Well, it has already done so. Patriarch Josef Slipyj is called that by most who refer to him in their posts here. Was he a valid Patriarch, I wonder? Neither Rome nor worldwide Orthodoxy ever recognized him as such - only his Particular Church and those members of it who consider their Church to be a true Particular Eastern Catholic Church.

Recognition of the Patriarchal status of the UGCC by other Churches, including Rome, is optimal. And it will come, one day. But who could legitimately argue that the UGCC is not following historic Orthodox ecclesial precedent in taking the path it is currently taking with respect to its Patriarchate?

Acknowledgement by Rome is one thing - but does that make "valid" what the UGCC Synod has already proclaimed?

And the proclamation of the Feast of the Translation of the Relics of St Nicholas Charnetsky - perhaps that too requires Roman approval for its validity?

The married priests ordained by the underground UGCC - does the fact that Rome knew not about them invalidate their ministry?

Patriarch Lubomyr himself was consecrated a bishop by Patriarch Josef the Confessor - Rome did not know about that and then had to acknowledge the fact of Husar's episcopal status.

I think that all Eastern Catholics - and Orthodox - should be applauding the efforts of the UGCC to finally affirm the fact of its Particular AND Patriarchal Status, with or without Rome.

Patriarch Lubomyr himself took off his Cardinal's ring and put it in his pocket to show the Vatican how highly he prized that honour. And he is a "Major Archbishop" in Rome's official eyes, not an "Archbishop." By Rome's own admission, the powers of a Patriarch and a Major Archbishop are EQUAL.

What is a little disconcerting is that we seem to be talking out of both ends of our mouths here.

On the one hand, we spend a lot of time talking about "being ourselves" and taking hold of our Particular Church rights. On the other, we want to do so ONLY if Rome says it is O.K. - or at least that is how I read our esteemed Administrator's comments.

So which is it? We can't take both routes at the same time. And when we do, is it any wonder when we are hauled up on the carpet by the Orthodox for what they correctly see as our BC double-speak?

If Rome's approval is necessary to legitimate what we do, then at least we know where we stand.

If we should act like the Particular Churches Rome says we are - including, I might add, the canonization of our own saints - then I think we should be united together in calling our Patriarchs "Patriarchs" and a spade - a spade.

Speaking of ethnic tensions, perhaps Ruthenian reticence in calling Husar a "Patriarch" has to do with a possible view that in so doing, the position of the Ruthenian Church is somehow weakened.

Would it be wrong to assume that Rome does indeed see the Ruthenians in a relation to the Kyivan Church, willy-nilly? I think it does, even when there are UGCC churchmen who do as well. But I don't and that is because the Ruthenians tell me they do not have a relationship to it and are a Particular Church that is independent of Kyiv.

But does the Ruthenian Church today see itself between two Church centres, so to speak, between Rome and Kyiv (or Lviv)? And because it does, it prefers to have its bishops consecrated at Rome by the Pope, rather than even risk contemplating the unthinkable - being consecrated by a UGCC Patriarch/Primate whose consecration might be seen as Ruthenian subordination to the Ukrainian Church within the context of ethnic tension?

Diak said that the Eastern episcopal formularies were not followed in the papal consecration of the Ruthenian bishops. And I don't know, I'll take his word for it since I know that he does know these things.

What does this say about the Ruthenian bishops' attitudes toward their own Particular Church? Surely they did not need to be consecrated by the Ukrainian or the Latin Patriarch. Perhaps a Ukrainian bishop or two could have served as co-consecrators.

How is Ruthenian Church Particularity served by such an attitude, if indeed this is the case as I'm seeing it?

It would certainly be an interesting proposition to see Eastern Catholic bishops going to Rome for consecration to affirm their independence of another Eastern Catholic Church ie. going to Rome to stay away from that other annoying Eastern Catholic neighbour Church.

I'm also wondering whether Particular Church rhetoric is simply that. So what if Ukrainians, Ruthenians and others are "Particular Eastern Churches" if they view one another with suspicion and are embroiled in territorial issues, what-not. Then what becomes of our common struggle to affirm our Particularity in communion with Rome but not "under Rome?" Are we then truly "Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics" only? In such a case, I would have to say we are. And I say that with deep sadness.

Alex

Alex,

You make some very good points and they are worth considering.

Admin

Personnaly, I feel it is the same old ethnic/provincial differences that keep us from being a unified Ukrainian/Ruthenian Church. After all, why would a Ruthenian bishop be consecrated by a Ukrainian Patriarch anymore than a Ukrainian bishop be consecrated by a Russian. That being said, however, in my vision we would be modeled along the lines of the OCA today. In that, there would be a Ukrainian Patriarch with a Synod of bishops. Just as the Romainians have there own bishop in the OCA, so would the Ruthenians under Kiev. The Patriarch would consecrate our Bishops just as the Metropolitan does for the OCA. Then we could truely embrace our Eastern heritage. I think....

Dmitri

Dear Administrator,

I apologise if what I said was untoward - it was not my intention.

And I do not say that if anyone disagrees with me - Anathema!

I guess I'm still very "Old World." You are right in your assessment about me that you've mentioned before!

My brand of "Old Calendar, Ethnic Language" Greek Catholic is a dying breed and we are stubborn - so stubborn that we risk not having a future in North America.

I also do not blame the Ruthenian Bishops for being consecrated by the Pope.

My original intention here was to go after Tony the Orthodox Seminarian. I was sorely tempted to go after Fr. Soroka (the two of them seem to walk lock-step!), but I respect priests too much to do that.

Seminarians are a different story

I love you all.

Alex

The problem is that too much "ethnic separatism"
exists with the use of "sui juris" Particular Eastern Churches. I would rather have the new
bishop-elects for the Ruthenian/Rusyn Eparchies (Prjashev-Mukachevo)
be concecrated bishops by a Kyivan Greek Catholic
Patriarch then by Latin bishops. If a Kyivan Greek Catholic Patriarchate exists, there should be some solidarity between neighboring Greek Catholic Eparchies without any
"ethnic" subordination. The Ruthenian recension
does have historical ties to Kyiv despite modern
Slavic ethnic seperatist views. In this issue, I think Alex makes a good point.

Alex,

Please don�t apologize for making sense. Your points about self-proclamation are very well taken and supportable. I will have to re-think my position on this issue. It is my guess that the major reason that Rome is slow to recognize the patriarchate is because of its pastoral concern for Orthodoxy (Moscow is adamantly against it). In a united Church this would fall under the jurisdiction of the EP and he would be the one to recognize the patriarchate (or at least give tacit approval). My ideal is to first see full communion re-established among all the Greek Catholic and Orthodox Churches in Ukraine and then have the new synod of bishops elect a patriarch. I guess that it�s a matter of my desire to put the restoration of communion before the creation of new ecclesial structures. Since that may still be aways off I can not fault the Ukrainians for wanting to get on with life since I want the same thing for our Church here in America.

Alex asked:
But does the Ruthenian Church today see itself between two Church centres, so to speak, between Rome and Kyiv (or Lviv)?

I don�t think so. Ruthenians (at least in America) do not see themselves as part of Kiev (Kyiv). I�m not sure why but it seems to me that is mostly because they no longer see a solid connection with Europe. There is a solid group which fears being swallowed up by a larger Ukrainian Church and fears ukrainianization. Don�t forget that we have absolutely no ecclesial ties with any of the Slavic countries. The natural outcome of this is that most people pay less attention to the goings on of the Byzantine / Greek Catholic Church there. Creating a new tie with a Slavic country would be seen as a step backwards.

I am not positive that I understand your conclusion. I do not think that the issues of being Particular Eastern Churches have anything to do with reducing us to �Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics�. That would only happen if we abandoned all of our Byzantine Orthodox liturgical and theological patrimony and praxis and replaced it with the theology and praxis of the Latin Church.

Again, my ideal for this situation would be that the new bishops be consecrated by the head of their own synod. There are only two BC bishops in Slovakia so there is not much of a synod (look to see the see of Pre�ov raised to the status of minor archbishop one of these days to begin building one). Mukchevo is not currently part of the Ukrainian Synod of Bishops. I wonder if the invitation to consecrate them in Rome was considered to be the only way of accomplishing this?

Admin

Dear Administrator,

First of all, I think you should be commended for the truly democratic way in which you not only conduct discussions, but also the way in which you conduct this forum. It is truly mystifying and I don't know if I would have any where near the same dispassion to do the same - I know I don't!

And I'm really only asking questions, I don't have any hard and fast conclusions here.

I don't know why the Byzantine Catholic bishops opted to be consecrated at Rome when they didn't have to be. And clearly they have no "obligation" to be consecrated by the Ukrainians or anyone else in the Eastern Churches, although, to me at least, being consecrated by Eastern bishops, of any cultural background, is always preferable!

And there is nothing wrong with being consecrated at Rome. But there is the matter of the message that is sent, and there is always a message that is sent whenever Eastern Catholic bishops, such as ours, opt to be consecrated at Rome by a Pope. If the Bishops feel that no message is sent, they should think again!

This has more to do with the delicate balance in the relation between the Particular Ruthenian Church and the Latin Patriarchate than anything else.

If the Eastern Church rubrics were not observed at the papal consecration and this didn't matter to the Eastern bishops, why not? If the fact that the Pope was consecrating them "made up" for that or else made the Eastern tradition "secondary" in consideration then, I will repeat, this is "Byzantine Rite Roman Catholicism." And this is dependent on the "If." I don't know the bishops, I don't really know the situation in the Ruthenian Church and I don't know what their attitude is.

To me, it was a bit of a shock since the Ruthenians tend to be more vocal about Eastern Church identity and Particularity than others - and certainly more than our Ukies.

We Ukies may be more Latinized in terms of our devotional practices, but in terms of Church order, I don't think we would tolerate having our bishops consecrated by the Pope. Our Patriarch visited Canada to consecrate a bishop of ours not too long ago - that is our Church's concern, the Pope and Rome have nothing to do with that.

If I may, I will take issue with just one more point, a point you may not have intended to make, but which was conveyed, I believe, by your use of the term "self-proclamation" with respect to the UGCC Patriarchate.

Again, the Synod proclaimed our Church a Patriarchal Church within the context of canons, privileges and historical precedents etc. If the Vatican can be taken at its word that a Major Archbishop has the same powers as does a Patriarch, then this is all about a formal title, and not about our Primate obtaining power he did not previously already have.

The term "self-proclamation" can contain the impression that what the Synod did was against the canons.

Again, both the Patriarch-Confessor and the Synod of UGCC bishops from around the world proclaimed that our Church is a Patriarchate because she has the powers of such that the Vatican has already affirmed by recognizing our Church as a Major Archbishopric.

And, when the Vatican did recognize our Church as such, it declared that our Church ALWAYS WAS a Major Archbishopric, since the time of 1596 and even before.

The Kyvian Orthodox Metropolitan has, historically, born the SAME PRIVILEGES as a Patriarch - he wore the same basic robes as such, and could perform certain liturgical actions previously reserved only to the EP. And his jurisdictional territory, from AD988 for the next five hundred years was FIVE times the size of the EP. The Kyivan Metropolitan initially "asked permission" to canonize saints from the EP. Later, no permission was sought and no one protested.

So the Synod of the UGCC did not "self-proclaim" for itself anything that Rome hasn't already acknowledged by way of Patriarchal powers.

It basically said that "if we walk like a Patriarchate, and talk like a Patriarchate, then we're a Patriarchate."

And they've petitioned Rome to acknowledge us as such.

In so doing, our Synod is acting in the very best traditions of the Eastern Churches, something that is a part of the Particular character of our very ecclesial being.

It is not a matter of "self-proclaiming" but of taking hold of what is already our right, as Pope St Pius X told St Andrew Sheptytsky.

And this is the best "ecumenism" with the Orthodox in fact. When the Orthodox see us as being "our own people," they won't be as inhibited in dealing with us - they won't fear that we are only around to pull them into Rome's dominating grasp.

If we need to wait for Rome to "give us" anything, we will never "have" anything.

And we will then truly be "Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics."

God bless!

Alex

Oh Alex, haven't I made it clear that I welcome all comments? To "go after me" would be no big thing. I'm an easy target here! Bring it on!

But this concept of walking in lock-step, all I can say is: "Thanks be to God!" Let's see, Tony's a former BC, I've got BC family; Tony goes to St. Vlad's, I went to St. Vlad's; Tony has resided in Pittsburgh, I reside in Pittsburgh; Tony is OCA, I'm OCA. etc... Lock step indeed.

My statements were very simple. First, some Orthodox might look at the "way" in which the ordinations were accomplished and see in it Roman domination. I hope this doesn't come as a shock to you, but no small amount of Orthodox think this. Finally, Orthodox would clearly look at this and say that if we were to unite with Rome, we could be in the same situation. The fear of being seen as a quaint and colorful (but expendable) "rite" of the Church, instead of the inheiritors of four of the five ancient Patriarchates is strong. There is much to lose. Obviously, the gospel is more about rites and rituals, but the seeming superiority of the Roman rite is more than just overwhelming numbers. It's attitude.

(I believe the majority of this "problem" has to do with how we view the office of the Roman pontiff - primus inter pares. Of course, we've discussed this to death - however, I will give a succinct thought that occurred to me a few days ago. If one wants to know "how" the Orthodox view the "first among equals" one would have to do a historical study of the various Orthodox churches attitudes toward the Patriarch of New Rome, Constantinople and now First Among Equals, after the division. The logical conclusion - mostly correct, but maybe not entirely - is that in a re-united Church, the Pope of Rome would be treated in like manner by the Orthodox Churches as the restored First Among Equals. However, clearly, there is a chasm of different attitudes there. No Autonomous church has to go to Constantinople for their approval of any cannonical matter. This is not so in the modern Catholic communion regarding Rome. Must not the ordination of bishops be approved by Rome? Changes in canon law? Revision of liturgical books? Etc... In a word, this is unacceptable by the Orthodox.)

Take the document "Liturgiam Authenticam" (which, by the way, I believe to be a brilliant document, and sorely needed by the Roman rite). The Roman rite is presented as being singularly able to conform to various cultures, both Eastern and Western. The implication is Eastern rites cannot. I believe this is a fallacious conclusion, but one which reveals the Roman attitude toward the Eastern rites. (Note what I believe is a spelling error. "Signal," should most likely be "single." Those who read Latin can either confirm or deny this.)

Yes, I say these things purely from an Orthodox perspective. But if you note, I am only commenting on "the Orthodox perspective." That is to say, "this is what we perceive from what we observe." Ultimately, I speak for myself alone, because I only have jurisdiction over my humble parish, but I do believe that my experience and my knowledge allow me to speak with, at least, some authority in such matters, from the Orthodox perspective.

Respectfully,

Priest Thomas Soroka

Fr. Thomas,

RE: Tony:

I honestly do not think that your comments about Tony are accurate, as I do not see your situations in any way similar. A reverse example would be if you transferred from the OCA to the BCC. I suspect that some within the OCA would then look suspiciously at anything negative you said about the OCA since you would have chosen to leave that jurisdiction. Tony�s conscious decision to move from one jurisdiction to another does make a difference in the way he will be perceived. It is pretty much just plain human nature and unavoidable, IMHO.

RE: The topic of the thread:

I think that you have again gone right to the heart of the matter. I do have some pastoral issues that I ask you to address from the Orthodox perspective.

Part of Rome�s hesitancy to recognize a patriarchate in Ukraine is clearly because of the Moscow Patrarchate�s adamant opposition. Is Rome correct in being concerned about how such recognition would affect its relations with Moscow? Would Rome�s recognition of a Ukrainian Patriarchate and the right of this autonomous Church be considered a step in the right direction in its respect for the East? I am also thinking about the Ecumenical Patriarchate�s continuing refusal to recognize the right of Moscow to grant the OCA autonomous status (even after 30 years) and would like to see steps taken to avoid such a situation in the UGCC.

I had always understood that prior to 1595 and 1646 the bishops of the Kievan Church were not really autonomous but appointed from the EP. And that the MP was not an autonomous Church until it was raised to the level of a patriarchate by the EP in 1589. Is this not correct? My perspective has always been that since Moscow looked to Constantinople to recognize her autonomy so, too, should the Kievan Church look to Constantinople to recognize her autonomy (and, in the case of the Greek Catholics not currently being in communion with the EP, Rome). I am not at all perfectly clear about the history of the ecclesial governance and would welcome more information on this.

Thank you for your participation and the perspective you bring to the Forum.

Admin

Bless me a sinner, Father Thomas!

You are living proof that Orthodox priests do indeed have a sense of humour!

So you know Tony, do you? I think I've mentioned that I have Sorokas in my family as well - so who knows, we may be all one happy group after all!

I don't disagree with what you've said. In fact, as my conversation with our esteemed Administrator bears out (do you know him too? ), what you've said is quite a fair characterization of a certain mind-set among Eastern Catholics that MAY OR MAY NOT have been at work at the papal consecration of the Byzantine Catholic Bishops.

So what you've said is right on. Whether or not it is characteristic of the newly consecrated bishops - I don't know. I do know that our Ukie Church isn't into having our bishops being consecrated by the Pope - our Patriarch is just fine, thank you very much.

I was only suggesting to our esteemed Administrator (who puts up with a lot of nonsense from posters here, including me, without losing his cool - for which we should all be grateful!) that this consecration does indeed raise the issues that you have described so well. (But you are a priest, and an articulate one at that, and if you don't know church issues, who does? ).

I think our Orthodox friends, such as yourself, do Eastern Catholics a great service in keeping us on the straight and narrow in this regard and in raising these points of debate.

I myself admitted as much in my posts to our venerable Administrator (he's still friends with me, would you believe . . .).

And I also said that IF things are as you say, then we are truly "Byzantine Rite Roman CAtholics."

Now doesn't that earn some admiration from yourself?

Kissing your right hand as I would that of Christ Himself, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Dear Administrator,

In fact, the bishops of the Kyivan Church, although confirmed by the EP, were actually appointed by the King of Poland under whose control the Kyivan Church was in the hey-day of the Union of Brest-Litovsk.

Approval by the EP was automatic - and this helped lead toward a union with Rome. As we know, the Polish King appointed those priests who were most sympathetic to him - and who became even moreso after they were made Princes of the Church by the King and owed him a debt of gratitude of sorts. These bishops owed more to the Polish King, in fact, than they did to the EP.

The EP, becoming suspicious of these Orthodox appointees by the Polish Catholic King then proceeded to empower the Orthodox Brotherhoods with Stauropeghial status, in effect creating lay "watchdogs" over the bishops, something the bishops resented and which also helped them steer their sights toward Rome, as Ilarion Ohienko and others discussed.

Also, in the 13th century, a "split" occurred within the Orthodox Church of Kyivan Rus over the matter of its relationship with the EP. Clement Smolyatich was consecrated Metropolitan of the Church at Kyiv that sought independence of the EP. He was consecrated using the relic of St Clement of Rome at Kyiv and took his name as a witness to the Apostolic authority and descent of the Kyivan Church from this Apostolic Father (and St Andrew too, but Clement played a far greater role in practice). St Niphont of Novhorod opposed Clement bitterly and insisted on continued dependency on the EP.

The Russian Church saw the Fall of Constantinople as an opportunity to establish not only a Patriarchate, but a kind of "Catholicosate" of the East where all Orthodox Christians in the region would look to the Russian Patriarch - and Tsar - as the new Primate of all the East. Constantinople was no more and the Russians also laid claim to their "Third Rome" status on the grounds that the Greeks had sold out their Orthodoxy at Florence and now the reigns of Orthodox leadership fell to the Pan-Orthodox Tsar.

Orthodox Patriarchates were established elsewhere by the autonomous Orthodox Churches and were considered so by them until they gained worldwide Orthodox recognition.

At no time has Orthodoxy ever stated that these Patriarchates were "invalid" because they were declared so without someone else's approval.

It is similar to the situation with saints. A saint is recognized locally or at a national Church level and no other Church need accept that saint's cult or even recognize his or her sanctity in any formal way.

The fame of a local saint grows over time, however, and he or she can eventually have the cult spread to other Churches.

St John the Confessor, the Ukrainian Kozak was actually canonized by three Churches, that of Constantinople, that of Greece, and, in 1962, by the Russian Church. He is a universal Orthodox saint today.

Alex

OK, I'm ready to get myself in trouble!
***********************************************
quote by alex:

And there is nothing wrong with being consecrated at Rome. But there is the matter of the message that is sent, and there is always a message that is sent whenever Eastern Catholic bishops, such as ours, opt to be consecrated at Rome by a Pope. If the Bishops feel that no message is sent, they should think again!
*************************************************

Alex I think you are being a little too sensitive about Eastern bishops being consecrated (or is the correct word ordained?) by the Pope. I think the message is: We are Catholic! That is plain and simple.

The particular churches are not stove pipes. There is interaction among all Catholics. Remember any Catholic my receive any sacrament/mystery in any particular Catholic church. Some things might require permission of a bishop, most like Eucharist, Confession, and Annointing require no special permission.

Normally a Eastern bishop should be ordained by his own hierarch. But like many things, there are execeptions. The Pope called these two men to Rome for ordination. That is an honor in my book. (and I know in yours too) In the end their episcopal ordination is equally valid as if Eastern bishops laid hands on them.

In closing I say:

I love the photos of the new bishops with the Pope!!

Dear Paromer,

Did I say it wasn't an honour to be consecrated by the Pope?

I'm raising issues that others have either raised or are thinking about (sometimes you can hear others think, you know!).

This has to do with the delicate balance in church relations.

And how come you came after me and not after Tony or Fr. Soroka?

I'm a pussycat by comparison to them, you know!

Do you not think a message was sent out by Ruthenian bishops consecrated in Rome and not according to the full tradition of their Particular Churches?

Do you not think that this message was not picked up by Eastern Catholics and Orthodox?

Ultimately, I have nothing really to say about it - they are Ruthenian Bishops after all and that is something for the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church to deal with.

So if the Ruthenians are happy with it, I'm happy too!

Alex

Alex, technically neither man is a Ruthenian bishop. Bishop Jan Babjak is eparch of the Slovak Catholic Church sui iuris and Bishop Milan Sasik is a Roman Catholic bishop who is the apostolic administrator of the (Ruthenian) Eparchy of Mukachevo.

Dear Lemko,

And you say this to make me happy?

But, really, what are you saying here?

That, yes, they are consecrated for the Ruthenian Church, but that, no, what can you expect from bishops with such backgrounds?

Alex