www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News An American Ukrainian in Paris

did Gudonov consecrate him?

The old 1819 transcription which is less than convincing. I would have thought you would have something better since the original of the Union of Brest with the wax seals has survived.

I should also note this 1819 transcription is not in the original language nor orthography of the Slavonic in use at that time.

This document does not negate that (1) Jeremias came and picked Job out of three candidates; (2) Job was the candidate publically supported by Godunov out of the three candidates; and (3) there is no account of an actual synodal election of Job himself to be Patriarch of Moscow. A Sobor does not elect three candidates to be picked by another prelate (and/or civil authority), they elect one by consensus.

Rarely in my life have I seen a more worthy candidate for the episcopacy of any particular Church in terms of his spiritual, academic, pastoral, and liturgical formation. His scholarship is sound has withstood the test of doctoral committees (and yes, I have been present at the defenses of several of my friends and been asked to review dissertations), scholarly journals, critical academic review, and time. He is the real thing and has no need for spurious Internet postings containing invective, personal insinuations and material of dubious origin that are seen by few and taken seriously by even fewer. МНОГАЯ ЛІТА, ВЛАДИКО!

Isa is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own history. Bishop Borys, when he was just Professor Gudziak, proved himself a brilliant, meticulous and perceptive historian. His book (which, from the dismissive manner in which Isa always treats it, I gather he has never read), is copiously documented from primary sources, which have a nasty habit of overturning post hoc attempts to rationalize skullduggery, incompetence and corruption.

The career of Patriarch Meletios and his role in Ruthenian Church affairs deserve a separate monograph to update the rather polemical work by Malyshevskii

The strongest opposition among the Eastern patriarchs to Jeremiah's unilateral activity in Moscow came from Meletius Pegas, patriarch of Alexandria, see Malyshevskii, [i]Pegas[/i, vol. 1, pp. 337-341 and vol. 2, pp. 3-4

I'm wondering how many peer-reviewed doctoral theses from Harvard Isa has published?

Dear IAmisry,

First of all, he is "Saint Meletios Pegas," having been glorified by the Pope/Patriarch of Alexandria.

Secondly, why are you going after Vladyka Gudziak? What is your acquaintance with him or his work? Is it simply because he is a great EC leader?

Also, you say that the UGCC has a "self-proclaimed patriarch" and that the "canons" forbid him from appropriating that term.

Can you show when or ever His Beatitude Svyatoslav Shevchuk has ever referred to himself as "Patriarch?" I would be very interested to see even one such reference.

Certainly, many in the UGCC do refer to him as such. But not he himself.

The appropriation of the title "Patriarch" is one which Rome has yet to ever condemn. For example, Bl. Pope John Paul II was in Ukraine and heard the title "Patriarch" used several times during the Divine Liturgy he attended.

Unless my eyesight is really failing me, not once did he yell, "Hey you(kie)guys - stop that or I'll excommunicate the lot of you" or anything of the kind. The Pope didn't like the breaking of canons and wasn't above pointing the finger at wayward political-theologian priests, especially during his vist to San Salvador. Nothing of the sort with the UGCC. He even said the cause of Patriarch Josef was "just" when the latter reposed.

You will be aware that a Major Archbishop is equal in rights and power to a Patriarch in all but the title - so calling one a patriarch isn't elevating him or changing his status at all.
That Rome doesn't acknowledge a UGCC patriarchate has more to do with politics than with ecclesiology or church authority

And I was under the impression that Orthodox theologians support the rights of EC Churches to greater ecclesial autonomy etc.

Boris Gudziak enjoys wide scholarly and ecclesial acclaim, and not only among Eastern Catholics. Several Orthodox friends of mine have, in the course of their academic studies, referred to Vladyka Borys' works and have attended his lectures. Not once have I ever heard them say something untoward about him - quite the contrary.

If you don't like the UGCC or Eastern Catholics as a whole, that is your right.

Ah, yes. Thank you for my omission. It was done since I've been there last. Well deserved!

Holy Pope Meletios, cover the Orthodox and your land with your prayers!

His authority as a scholar was invoked. I just replied. I didn't say a thing over his greatness or lack thereof as a scholar, let alone as a "EC leader."

http://risu.org.ua/en/index/expert_thought/interview/43376/
btw the statement "There are several dimensions of this issue. A patriarchate can be understood as an honorary title. There are many such honorary patriarchs in the Catholic Church, like the Patriarch of Venice, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, and so on. This is an honorary title, but it has no foundation for a national church" is in error: the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem is a Palestinians, of a church of Palestinians, wanting it to be the national church of Palestine, and Venice had its own empire, let alone its own Republic and nation, when it got the title.

But that doesn't change the fact that the title of "Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem" is just that - an honorary title of the Latin Church. The fact that it has many Palestinians doesn't change the status of that title. And Rome NEVER intended it to be a "National Church of Palestine" - that simply isn't the RC ecclesiology of the West. As for Venice, it too has an honorary title (which means it is directly under Rome where the Patriarch has no power whatsoever, unlike any EC Patriarch who is seen to be "sharing in the authority of the Pope to rule the particular Church" etc.). Of course, I support my Arab Orthodox and EC brothers in their aspirations for a national Church and the like. They are more than entitled to such, they want such and Heaven knows the suffering Arab Christians of today need all our support.

He calls all his predecessors, whom he claims to succeed, as such.

In fact, sir, he only calls "Patriarch Josef" as such, as do many UGCCers, other EC's, such as the Melkites and Orthodox bishops I've had the pleasure of conversing with on this matter. The fact is his position is that he won't call himself "patriarch" until Rome does first. But we laity and our clergy do commemorate him as "patriarch." We know it isn't approved by Rome and we want Rome to approve it. We act as if we already are a patriarchal church, awaiting Rome's approval. No one has condemned us yet. Let them try. Also, if the Arab EC's would like their Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem to be their true Arab Patriarch - I support that readily, as would we all. The Vatican website when discussing Patriarch Josef says that "his church gave him the title of 'Patriarch'" and it doesn't condemn that nor him. Let Rome condemn a church that has shed much blood for its loyalty to it. Somehow, it won't. There is no reason for Rome not to recognize our patriarchal status. It is really just a matter of time. There are no black and white answers here. We are Catholics. And yes, we do what we feel is best for us, even though it does break canons. Rome will just have to forgive us one day. We will also forgive Rome at the same time.

yes, like infallibility, universal jurisdiction is something Pastor Aeternus sets up as an amorphous aura rather than a concrete practice. And yet we are supposed to hold it.

Besides, did he understand Ukrainian/Church Slavonic?

Actually, Pope John Paul II's mother was Ukrainian Greek-Catholic from Ternopil and his cousins live there still. He was quite fluent in Ukrainian and always carried on conversations with UGCC bishops in Ukrainian. When I had the privilege of meeting him, we carried on our conversation in Ukrainian. I know he could read Church Slavonic. But the Divine Liturgy that was celebrated was conducted in Ukrainian.

He also promulgated the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, which forbids the UGCC from taking the title.

Look, we are an Eastern Church governed by laws written by Latins and/or from a Latin ecclesial viewpoint. Orthodox commentators on Catholic Canon Law for Eastern Catholic Churches have said as much. Yes, there is tension in that relationship and that ecclesial arrangement. It's not perfect and we move ahead. Neither are the canons perfect and we feel, as an Eastern Church, that we ourselves need to have a say in the matter of how we are governed and in our own patriarchal government. The Decree on the EC Churches also maintains that we need to reclaim our heritage, our own theological, liturgical and canonical traditions. Affirming our need for a patriarchate (also in accordance with that same Decree) and doing whatever we, as an EC Church, can to bring it to realization is part of our tradition too. Rome can't have it both ways - first to tell us that only it can affirm our patriarchate after having said we need to reclaim what was lost in our identity and praxis as a result of the Unia.

compare your canon 153 with your canons 75-77, noting the second half of your canons 151-2.

If you want to play "gotcha" with canons, I won't join you. The real praxis of our patriarchal government already exists and continues. I don't see what you are pointing attention to - nor do I or we UGCCers care.

Orthodox theology has nothing to do with bishops not in the Orthodox diptychs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

You are wrong there because Orthodox theologians have commented on what they believe the EC Churches should be doing. Not all Orthodox believe that the EC and RC Churches are in utter darkness for not being in communion with the One, Holy, Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I have spoken with priests and two bishops of the ROCOR jurisdiction who themselves gave advice as to what the UGCC should be doing in terms of maintaining what Orthodox traditions it has and the like. I know they respect UGCC priests who adhere to Eastern tradition. Yes, they do take an interest in the UGCC and they have something to do with us "heretics" though we are to them.

Saying his wrong is not untoward. Much less than his own assessment of Malshevskii-I didn't call Crisis and Reform a "rather polemical work."

OK, I agree. I have myself translated critiques of UGCC "definitive" histories of the Unia written by UGCC theologians/writers (e.g. Dr Mykola Krokosh who ripped apart a lot of the UGCC Catechism in that regard). I didn't fully understand what you were getting at, but now I believe I do and am satisfied with your articulation of your position.

It has nothing to do with likes or dislikes. The work was invoked as definitive and comprehensive, and I just pointed out one of its serious omissions. Halecki addressed the matter, Crisis and Reform could as well.