Glory to Jesus Christ!
11.—That our Bishops should not send to Rome for the sacrae (permission to consecrate), but, if the King's Grace names someone to a bishopric, that according to the old custom the Archbishop—Metropolitain should have the duty and the right to ordain him. The Metropolitain himself, before entering upon the office of metropolitain, should send the sacrae to the Pope. Then, after he has received the sacrae from Rome, let the bishops ordain him, at least two of them, according to their custom. If a bishop is elected Metropolitain, let him not send for the sacrae, because he already has the episcopal cheirotonia; he may take an oath of obedience to the Supreme Pontiff in the presence of the Archbishop of Gniezno (who on that occasion will not be functioning as Archbishop, but as Primate of Poland).
I'm confused. Why the need for sacrae and an oath of obedience to the Pope (aka Supreme Pontiff)? Especially when you have other statements that confuse me even more like:
15.—If in the future someone of our Religion should want to join the Roman Church, denying his own Religion and Ceremonies, let him not be accepted, since he is degrading the Ceremonies of the one Church of God, since, being already in one Church, we shall have one Pope.
And this confuses me even more because it seems they (the Ukrainians here) condemn someone leaving their Church for the Roman Church and yet end with
There is strong language to defend their traditions but then they have comments that suggest submissiveness to the Pope. So I'm confused. What was the intention of this union? To be under Rome but keeping their traditions or to be a sister Church with Rome, working with the Pope not under the Pope?
Kyrie eleison,
Manuel
PS: Isn't there some document or treaty that says something to the extent that Eastern Catholics are not to be held to any Roman doctrine after the schism? I forget how it goes but something to that extent.
