www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News NAME FOR UKRAINAIN CHURCH

Dear David,
I never had nor will have the intentions of demanding that the Rusyns should be part of the Ukrainian Church. I'm just saying that it would be an option since we share basically the same liturgical traditions and being so why not have a Patriarch as a spiritual father of your church.
I'm sure that you will not be obliged to wear a trident and have UKie flags placed into your homes and churches.
I respect your identity, your traditions and your points of view, and even though you're not Ukrainians, you people are OK! You are our neighbors and that's why I suggested "The Kyivan Church of Karpato-Rus" and not "The Ukrianian Kyivan Church of Karpato-Rus". That is Kyivan in tradition and Karpato-Rus as ethnic.
Lauro

Dear David, this patriarchal problem is, of course, well known within Orthodoxy. The Patriarchate of Constantinople - a relative new comer in Patriarchal history - was loathe to recognise the legitimacy of various Balkan patriarchates, just as the Serbian Patriarchate is now pretending there were never any other local churches of the 'southern Slavs'.

Recognition is problematic, as it so often means letting go of some of your power and recognising the spiritual integrity of other local Churches and their traditions.

If the Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine is a sister-church of Rome, does it need the recognition of its primate as Patriarch by the Pope? This is a sincere canonical question. Could someone please elaborate on and explain this issue?

My understanding of sister-churches is that the primate of each is equal in dignity and authority, though one - the pope in this case - may receive the primacy of honour. Having said that, the patriarchal title is not necessary in this. The Archbishop of Sinai is as much a first hierarch as his jurisdictional neighbours the Patriarch of Jerusalem and the Pope of Alexandria.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner

Dear Alex:

Of course, you are correct that our theologians are idealistic - but if we aim for anything less than the ideal, where will we wind up?

As far as being a laughing stock - let them laugh if they want. Like I said, Old Rome, New Rome or the Imperialists in "Third Rome" don't need to recognize a Kyivan Patriarch for the triumph to occur. Frankly, let them excommunicate us - I don't care. Deep down, we would be respected for having the courage of our convictions.

Now, having said this, I am perfectly aware of the "human nature" ascpet of what's going on. In our case, we can't seem to shake this notion that we have to be slaves to others or that we need external validation to know who we are and where we come from. PUHHLEEZE!

Scoff if you will, but a little idealism once in a while is not all bad.

Yours,

kl

Dear Klyros leader your words elicit Old Rite Orthodox sympathies! They strike a common chord.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Kliros,

I'm not scoffing at all . . .

And what I've said is nothing new, nothing that patriarchalists haven't said to our bishops and others over the years - they've said much, much more.

But why do we need to go, mitra in hand, to ask Rome or anyone for anything?

Why would we want to place ourselves in the publicly embarrassing situation of proclaiming communion with the two Romes, only to be publicly told that such union is not recognized by either?

What don't we just proclaim our Patriarchate and work for unity with our Orthodox brothers, hopefully winding up with a united Church?

The human element is currently enshrined in the ideology of the respective churches, it is something that has been around for a few hundred years.

Even our existence as a church in communion with Rome was basically an attempt by Rome to try and get the Russians 'on board' with it - but it failed.

And when I say "idealism" I largely mean "wishful thinking."

And that is no virtue.

Alex

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

Sorry, but I hope not . . .

Ours is a unique situation that has been going on for a few decades now.

If we were like the Old Believers, true to ourselves and owing nothing to no one, we would be better off.

But what Kliros and Fr. Prof. Andrij are talking about is an idealistic "communion" with Rome and Constantinople.

Would you care to be in such a communion?

Alex

No Alex, I am not in agreement with them, but I must as an Old Ritualist sympathise with them.

Like you I do not think that their course is legitimate, but Old Believers have also felt pressed to find solutions that in hindsight were not ideal. This has to be my opinion of the Old Believers who entered into communion with Rome and of those who accepted Constantinopolitan priests within the Ottoman empire. I think that they were mistaken, but I know that they were forced into a corner and looked for idealistic solutions. The choices seemed few. As one also pushed into a corner, I often dream up all manner of idealistic solutions to my own dilemnas. This is from where my sympathy springs.

Remember, that Old Believers have NOT always been true to themselves. we mustn't idealise the Old Believer postion. Why are there so many priestless Old Believer concords? ...Because they felt the need to compromise and to gain some sort of recognition and respectabilty. We are all human and our humanity sometimes leads us down strange paths.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, mok and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

Agreed.

But our Ukrainian situation is different. We are not "hard-pressed," but we are divided.

And we continually feel the need for self-legitimation from others, Rome etc.

There are Ukrainian Catholics, of the Latinized variety especially, who need to be "under" someone at all times.

I hope that Rome does ratify our Patriarchate. People are saying that "everything looks good" for such.

But ultimately it should be we ourselves who should move forward together without anyone's permission or nod of approval.

Alex

Dear Alex:

I like this. This is good.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but we agree on the point that we should work toward a united "Ukrainian" church with a Patriarch at its head. Fine. Let's assume we've accomlished this. Lumomyr and Filaret have embraced in a kiss of peace, a joint synod of the UGCC and KP has been held and Kyr Hlib has been elected as our new Patriarch. (Quite an assumption - but work with me here).

Now - the age old question: Now that we got it, what are we going to do with it? Internally - we do what we have to do. That's not the issue at hand.

But what do we do externally? You seem to suggest that we do nothing. Don't seek relations with any other Patriarch, just "sit on our own garbage" (as the Ukie saying goes) and exist.

What I tend to think is that we go out and say, you are the Patriarch of (insert See here) and we recognize you as such and your flock will be welcome in our churches. Period - end of letter. We would not be "asking" for anything - nor should we.

I'm sorry, but I don't see this as "mitra in hand." I see this as an equal asserting himself as an equal.

Yours,

kl

I will be repling to many in this post so please bare with me.

Krylos,
I apologize and will not lump you with the others in this.

While I understand what you are saying about recognition by Rome being something scary to the Orthodox, I would ask that you go back and read what I said.

Here it is;

Until he is recognized as such by Rome, or even my Church

As you can see, I included my Church in this. I was not trying to imply that the recognition must come from a superior, I was saying that the recognition must come from another church that it is in communion with.

Isn't this the way the Orthodox do things? Would the Orthodox recognize the Metropolitian of the OCA as a Patriarch if tomorrow the Synod of Bishops of the OCA voted to call him one?

I am not saying that Rome can grant the title, just recognize it.

Lauro,
Basicly all Byzantine Churchs share a tradition, so why not join with the Melkites that already have a recognized Patriarch?

What I fear could happen if the Byzantine(Ruthenian) Catholic Church put itself under the Ukrainian Church is what happened in Ben Lomond, California, with the Antiochian Evangelical Orthodox Mission. This fear is that after sometime the Ukrainian Hierarchy would come out and say that the "experiment" is over and we must comform to their way.

Yes we are Carpatho-Rusyn in ethnicity, but I am not sure we are Kyivan in tradition, after all do we not use the Ruthenian recession of the Liturgy? Isn't there a Ruthenian tradition?

Fr Mark,
As you can read above, I am not saying that the Ukrainian's need the recognition of the Pope as primate, but as a sister church, do they not?

The Milan Synod is not recognized by any of the other orthodox churches so they are considered uncanonical, correct?


As a side note, I guess I can carry on a discussion here without getting emotional.


In Christ,
David

Dear Fr Mark:

I all humility, I must ask this:

How is seeking communion with both Rome and Constantinople not being true to ourselves?

Yours,

kl

Yes, I equally agree Alex. The need for legitimacy often manifests itself in chasing others for that nod, yet is a hollow, legalistic mandate.

If the Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine is a sister-church of Rome, in the way I understand it, it should seek the recognition by its sister churches, be they Latin, Melkite, Chaldean or whatever. However, since Rome is NOT a Mother Church it is not in the position to 'grant' the patriarchal dignity.

We saw an Old Orthodox example of this with the elevation of His Beatitude Archbishop Alimpii of Moscow and All Rus to the rank of Metropolitan. The Romanian sister Church recognised this, but as a sister.

The same applies with the creation of an Old Orthodox Patriarchate by the Novozybkovtsy. The Georgian sister Church, recognised it as a sister, but nothing more.

The Lord bless you.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.
.

Dear David, the Milan Synod had a canonical foundation in the strictest sense of the word. Though they were never recognised by 'world Orthodoxy' they were canonically legitimate.

Their present lack of canonicity is because of the theologically dubious activities of the first hierarch, who breaks the holy canons and then claims to have done so with the sanction of his synod. They have a chance to restore their canonicity, but their American hierarchs sit like brass monkeys covering their eyes, noses and ears!

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Kliros,

Assuming, according to your vision, that our Churches in Ukraine become One (!).

Externally, what do we do?

Tell Rome, Constantinople, Moscow etc. that we are one and united in one Church.

Inform them. Don't ask them for their blessing.

Canonize some more saints. And inform everyone of this.

Issue an invitation to the canonization.

But include on the invite "Please respond early - seating for foreign church dignitaries is limited."

How's that?

Alex

Dear David:

I'm sorry for not reading your post more carefully.

I guess what we are talking about is something akin to civil "states" recognizing each other.

So we seem to agree that the question is not whether a political entity is, in fact, a "State" or a "Church" - the question is, rather whether other "States" or "Churches" have recognized it as such. Let the politics begin.

Yours,

kl