www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Saint Josaphat:Apostle of Union

Bob,

Neither of those terms can apply to the Ukrainian Catholic or Ruthenian Churches. As was mentioned earlier neither could they be applied to the Greek Archdiocese in the USA.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Bob,

The union between the Byzantine and Oriental Churches in union with each other and with Rome is not a perfect one. I tread lightly here and if I do not speak accurately, I trust my Eastern Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters to correct me.

ISTM that one of the great contributions of the Eastern Catholic Churches has been the struggle to remain true to both the petrine function of the Bishop of Rome and to the theology and practices of Orthodoxy. History does not seem to tolerate direct lines very well and the situation of these Churches might be a reflection of God writing staight with crooked lines.

The Ukrainian Catholic Church has been self-governing since the renewal of communion with the Pope. The Byzantine Catholic Church in the United States has had its Sui Juris (self-governing) status recognized by its Patriarch, the Pope. I think there is a similar history for each of the 22 Eastern or Oriental Catholic Churches. The historians of these Churches or others who are members of the list can give you dates and facts better than I can.

The look of self-governance in these churches has had high and low tides at various times. Self government, from what I know, has not always been practiced in the same way because of the sea of civil and religious politics as well as the streams of theological thinking in which the Churches found themselves.

Through it all, these Churches defined themselves as self governing. They have had to fight to survive let alone to survive as self governing. They are real Churches to both the Latin and Orthodox Chruches, however. If not, why have they been called a stumbling block to unity by members of both communions?

I'd like to propose an alternate reading of the history of these "stumbling blocks" and what you describe in your question.

Perhaps God is writing for the rest of his Churches in the History and Current life of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Might He not be readying the Papacy for new ways to exercise the Petrine function in the Churches by teaching Papal officials that there are other real Churches besides the Latin Church already in communion with the Pope. They are constant in their message that they can govern themselves without removing Peter or pushing Peter to move from their communion?

Their faith and patience in this teaching office is truly awe inspiring. Their battles are hard and frustrating but through this suffering true growth is happening.

Might God not be writing to the Orthodox that there is a possibility of change so that Peter's special office in the Church can be exercised in a way that makes
the true freedom of the sons and daughters of God real. It might be that the issues of celibacy and the resignation of bishops are places where God is using current history to chart a course to a universal communion with Peter serving all of the Churches in a different way.

Again, I tread lightly and would like to hear the thought of others. I do think that The Latin Church and the various Orthodox Churches, if the stupidity and malice generated by our lack of Love for each other can be lessened, can find a rich resource for all of us in the life and struggle of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

History is messy and seldom orderly. In the mess life's changes happen for individuals and Churches. Perfection is surely there since God is there, but only He can see it. The rest of us can only see the mess of imperfection since we're there, too.

>>>The Ukrainian Catholic Church has been self-governing since the renewal of communion with the Pope. The Byzantine Catholic Church in the United States has had its Sui Juris (self-governing) status recognized by its Patriarch, the Pope.


Sorry, but the Pope is not our Patriarch. We are not a patriarchal church, but rather a Metropolian in communion with the Western Patriarch.

anastasios

Several responses:

Dustin: I assume a post-reunion n consolidation of the eastern churches in Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Ukraine would not be a problem, each being a autonomous or autocephalus church (and for that matter, as the "Catholics" would be the majority in these churches as well as the Chuch of Antioch, maybe certain provisions to respect the "Orthodox"). Sujection to Constantinople or Moscow would be another thing.

Robert: The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was raised to autocephalus status by H.H. Pius XII. The two Ruthenian eparchies in Eastern Europe were made autonomous at the begining of the last century. Our U.S. Ruthenian church was made autonomous int he 1920's. The Ruthenian Church is governed by its own particular laws as to the ordination of married men.

K.

Anastasios,

Thank you for the information, it helps to clarify the status of the Church headed by Metropolitan Judson.

I have several questions that you or another list member might be able to answer. It is my understanding that there are several self-governing Byzantine Churches one of which is centered around Pittsburgh. Are there other self-governing Chruches within the Catholic Communion which share the same name and the same ethnic heritage, but not the same Metropolitan? If there are, at the time of reunion, would they be still be self-governing? I guess that I'm asking if they would necessarily be reunited with the Orthodox Church that shares the same ethnic roots (if there is one) or would they be different enough because of the 500 years of different history and different experience to continue to be self-governing? Are there different opinions on this question?

Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

Let me start off by saying I'll let others respond to this, but we might all agree in advance that whatever speculation we offer, this is like asking what the names on the street signs will be in Jerusalem after an Israeli-Palestinian final agreement.

It is a minor afterthought to reunion and will obviously depend on the pastoral considerations at the time of reunion.

Okay, boyz, go at it.........

Kurt writes:

Robert: The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was raised to autocephalus status by H.H. Pius XII. The two Ruthenian eparchies in Eastern Europe were made autonomous at the begining of the last century. Our U.S. Ruthenian church was made autonomous int he 1920's. The Ruthenian Church is governed by its own particular laws as to the ordination of married men.

K.

=============================================

But you still haven't answered my question. If the Ukrainian Catholic Church is autocephalus as you state, why did the two Ukrainian Bishops send their retirement requests to Rome for approval? Why didn't it go to the highest authority in their autocephalus church instead? And why do they fall under Vatican retirement age rules to begin with if they are members of an autocephalus church? Retirement rules are not dogmatic. This is not being autocephalus. Also, if the Ruthenian Church is automonous, which did your Bishop do the same?
And the age old question which is why no married priests in the U.S. A married priesthood is part of the guarantees given under the union of Brest/Litovsk.

Dave writes:

"Neither of those terms can apply to the Ukrainian Catholic or Ruthenian Churches. As was mentioned earlier neither could they be applied to the Greek Archdiocese in the USA."

---------------------------------------------

But Dave, no one is claiming that the Greek Archdiocese is either automous or autocephalus. What's your point?

Bob

My point is (and I'm sure some here will disagree with me) that neither the Ukrainian Church nor the Ruthenian Church meet the definition of those terms in the sense that most Orthodox use them. IMHO the Melkite Church is an autocephalous Church. Both the Ruthenian Church and the Ukrainian Catholic Church (to a much lesser degree) still are not completely self-governing...similar to the way the Greek Archdiocese in this country is controlled by the Phanar. From my own perspective not all of this is bad (although I'd like to see more autonomy given to the Ruthenian and Ukrainian Churches). Removal of latinizations among Eastern Catholic Churches and better ecumenical relations with Orthodox have benefitted by nudges from Rome. I wonder how these would have fared if some of the Eastern Catholic Churches had been left to themselves without Rome's input on this. (I recall a "Novus Ordo" type of Byzantine liturgy that was attempted in Slovakia that was qabashed by Rome.)

You referred to the situation with married priests here in this country. I am willing to concede the point here. I think almost all Byzantine Catholics here are distressed by the history of the supression of our married clergy in this country. Most of us also feel (and I think we're in the 95 per centile on this) that this is a situation that must and will change. I have no doubt it will...in fact, it is starting to already. The real problem now is not that Romans in this country are scandalized by married priests. The problem today is that the liberals in the Roman Church in this country want to cite our tradition to allow priests to marry (which is different than ordaining married men) and to ordain women. Rome's response is to limit the application of our tradition. This is a huge pastoral mistake in my opinion (as was "the Ban" originally).

A final thought. What if we could go back to the 1890's and establish today's standards in relations between Rome and Eastern Catholics back then? Would St Alexis and many of the others have abandoned the Greek Catholic Church? What if St Alexis had been given the respect he deserved when he met Archbishop Ireland? Forty years later, was not because there was no way the married seminarians in Fr Charnock's parish could get an exemption to be ordained that eventually led to the formation of the Johnstown Diocese? Now, exemptions are available again. Would there have been the schism in the Church had the exemptions been available in 1929? My point is there has already been tremendous changes with regards to the situation with married clergy in the Byzantine Church in this country. The changes are such that had they been in effect earlier most of the schisms in our churches would have been avoided. And I think many of us in the Byzantine Church are confident that a complete restoration of our tradition of married clergy is not that far off.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[This message has been edited by DTBrown (edited 12-29-2000).]

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church elects it own Head, therefore, the Church is "self-headed", "auto" + "cephalus".

Those particular churches under their own particular law are autonomous or "sui iuris", however, sui iuris is a Latin term and therefore an eastern term would be preferable to express this.

The guarantees given under the union of Brest/Litovsk did not modify the Church's principle of one bishop in a given place. However, excerizing his office as Universal Pastor, the popes nullifed the established Latin bishop's exclusive authority in the 48 states and established eastern eparchies in North America underthe terms and provisions deemed pastorally best. The exceptionable U.S situation for 150,000 out of 7 million Ukrainian Greek-Catholics does not alter the status of the Head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church (nor the Eparch of Presov). Americans are not the center of the universe, right?

K.

Kurt writes:

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church elects it own Head, therefore, the Church is "self-headed","auto" + "cephalus".
=============================================

Kurt, with all due respect, you have a very narrow minded view of 'autocepahly'. It is much more than getting to elect your own head. It also means being administratively, culturally, and religiously independent while sharing the same faith thru the doctines that are shared by the Church.
If the Ukrainian Catholic Church is truly ADMINSTRATIVELY autocephalus then there is no need for it to abide by non doctrinal rules in the Roman Catholic Church. So you still haven't answered my question as to why either the Ukrainian or Ruthenian Bishops had to abide by it. Or why the retirements were not submitted to the highest ranking authority in the church. Which you claim is not the Pope because you are an autocephalus church 'in communion with' rather than 'under the authority of'.

However, excerizing his office as Universal Pastor, the popes nullifed the established Latin bishop's exclusive authority in the 48 states and established eastern eparchies in North America underthe terms and provisions deemed pastorally best. The exceptionable U.S situation for 150,000 out of 7 million Ukrainian Greek-Catholics does not alter the status of the Head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church (nor the Eparch of Presov). Americans are not the center of the universe, right?

=============================================

So then, who is the highest earthly authoriy
of the Ukrainian and Ruthenian churches in the US? Is it the Vatican, the Latin Bishops, or your own Bishops. Excuse me if I'm not getting this, but if you are truly what you claim tobe then it wasn't necessary for these Bishops to abide by Roman Catholic rules or submit their retirements to the Pope.

Robert,

One can offer opinions and points of view on a variety of matters as to the relationship between the Catholic particular churches and the Catholic Universal Church. I think it would be self-evident however, that the Catholic Church can decide for herself, without deference to individuals or bodies outside her communion, the fine points which are attached to the application of a term which is accruate in its prima facie meaning.

Unlike the various Orthodox national churches, the Catholic particular churches choose to have close bonds of fraterntiy, colaboration and shared ministries. Our history has shown us the advantage of fraternity and colaboration on pastoral, social, educational, and cultural matters rather than limiting the correspondence between particular churches to only doctrinal matters. In fact, this fraternity has been essentail to our continued existance.

However, to Catholicism this is simply a practice for practical purposes; it makes no judgement that the distinctive practice of the Eastern Orthodox churches is not avantageous to them, given its particular history.

You might also be interested to know that the Eastern bishops either in North America or elseswhere are not under Latin law concerning the age of retirment, but we have our own law on that matter, though it closely resembles the Latin law.

Dear Brother Maximos,
I am responding publicly to your comments on Josephat and the reaction the first post spawned:

>>Glory to Jesus Christ!

I think some people have been offended by this treatment of a saint of the Catholic Church. I sympathise with this. After all, this is a Catholic board. I don't think many Catholics would be welcome going onto an Orthodox forum and slandering, say, St Alexis Toth or the Tsar-Martyr Nicholas.

Having said that, I do not propose to censor this kind of material, distasteful as I personally find it. One of the necessary, though dirty, tasks of ecumenism is to dredge up the hostility of the centuries so that we can at last discharge it. Each partner in the ecumenical enterprise has to know the weakest points of the other so that together we can help each other heal. History must be faced with courage. This means *both* the true history based on verifiable fact *and* the history based on prejudice and fear. This latter is a powerful and destructive contagion for which there is no more powerful disinfectant than sunlight and fresh air.

Pray for me.
unworthy monk Maximos

The (public) question I have is why Americans, who have no personal connection with any of the historical details of the divided church, feel so compelled to respond to religious questions with so much hostility and venom? Orthodox venom can be scary, but I have witnessed Roman venom that is just as shocking. I ask this especially because there is no necessary connection between philosophy and faith today as there has been in times past and one does not need to complicate one's life with so much hatred.
Florida

I would agree that terrible episodes in our shared history need to be aired-out in order to foster unity, but I am unclear if that is the intent here. While I admit to being completely ignorant of St. Josaphat and the accuracy of the charges against him, I do find precendence in Church history for such a controversial saint: St. Cyril of Alexandria. Besides the charges so-called Nestorians level against him, there is rumblings about his strong-arm tactics against opponents in Alexandria. This would include having a mafia-like group of monks to act as enforcers for him, the "parabolani". The most notorious act this group is accused of is the brutal murder of a famed pagan priestess (whose name escapes me, but it starts with an "H" I think). I find such incidents to be disturbing in the lives of saints, but then they are human and sinners like the rest of us. One of my favorite saints, Thomas More of England, was not opposed to persecuting heterodox while in the Chancellorship, yet he himself was later martyred by such use of the State's power in Church affairs. God bless the saints for they offer us such a remarkable example, but they can be a paradox at times, or perhaps it is better to say that they were very human.

Pax Christi,
John

[This message has been edited by John M. Betts (edited 01-07-2001).]