www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX BODIES MAY MERGE, DEFY MOSCOW

Dear Brendan,

I am very glad to hear that!

And what I want is a canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate living side by side with the Moscow Patriarchate, both respectful of each other's jurisdiction, rights and privileges.

Am I wrong to want that? Are we all wrong to want that?

You don't have to respond. I know you will doubtless say "No" to both questions .

Alex

First I have to disagree with Brendan that the Vatican is "positioning" itself. I don't think what we are seeeing is some Spin doctoring". The Holy See, the MP, and the other parties are each acting sincerely. Defend the Pope or disagree with him (and the same for the Moscow Patriarch) but don't suggest its all positioning.

Second, on the issue of meeting with the two other Ukrainian Orthodox groups, that was deliberately done under the umbrella of the Pan-Ukrainian Council of Churches, to which all three Orthodox jurisdictions belong to. The Holy See made it quite clear the UOC-KP and UOAC where to be recieved as part of a delegation that the ROC was a constituent of. Unfortunately, the ROC refused to meet with the Pope even under these accomodating arangements.

In a word, the MP problem is not poor PR, it is his own self-made problems.

Olga

If'n Patriarch Alexei II is looking to be the leader of world Orthodoxy, he ain't gonna accomplish it by "taking his ball and going home"...

The Patriarch of Moscow should have known by observation what this Pope does to world leaders who act in bad faith (which I believe the Patriarch of Moscow is doing with respect to Rome). This Pope utterly annihilates the credibility of such people. IMHO, the Patriarch of Moscow has a whole lot to be afraid of from a Papal visit to Russia if his (the Patriarch's) attitude doesn't change. (Yes, I know the Pope won't visit without an invitation from the Patriarch).

I'm not saying that the Pope is out to get Patriarch Alexei - far from it - but we've already seen in Ukraine what happened. The Pope extended the olive branch, and the Patriarch of Moscow extended the fist, and we know who, in the view of Catholics and Orthodox (other than Muscovite apologists) came out on top in that tete-a-tete.

I firmly believe that if the Patriarch of Moscow comes around and makes a good-faith effort toward corporate reunion, we WILL see corporate reunion before I draw my last breath on this earth, provided that the Almighty grants me a normal span of years (I am 32 years old).

--NDHoosier

[This message has been edited by NDHoosier (edited 06-29-2001).]

You got it Olga!

No offense, but I suspect Brendan is being a great westerner and making certain the MP is being defended here.

The Russian Orthodox Church suffered terribly under the communist yoke. I pray for them every day. The current Russian Orthodox PM was a KGB informant. I separate the PM and the Russian Orthodox Church, Orthodox or not.

I also understood that the MP had let it be known that he would oppose a visa to the Pope. I believe that would qualify as restricting him from tending his flock. On that point I may be wrong.

I have to wonder, what is the MP afraid of? Here in America anybody is welcome to state their religious views and a lot of folks STILL decide to be Orthodox and not Catholic, Eastern or otherwise. What will it hurt for the Pope to go to Russia? If the MP is right, he has God on his side.

Politics? Heck, Pope John II has been passionate about healing the schisms of the churches. PASSIONATE. Is that a sin? Is it evil? Is it to be avoided? Is it politics? Are Ukrainian Orthodox Christians not under Moscow wrong to seek to heal the schisms of the Churches? NO! Christ himself prayed that we Christians would remain one. The MP seems to be preoccupied with Russian Orthodox domination of formerly Soviet states.

I have another question for the defenders of Constantinopolan Orthodoxy. Why the heck do you guys insist on one tradition and one liturgy? It seems to me that the old Roman Catholic "my way or the highway" has been adopted by Eastern Orthodoxy. Alexandria, Rome, Jerusalem, it's all crap. God speaks only through Constantinople. Hey, let's take the Russian stand. The Russian MP is the successor to St. Peter (God help us all), and you better do as he says.

Thanks, but no thanks. My Patriarch let's me use the Rite of Constantinople, and others the Maronite, and even others use the old calendar. My patriarch wants to heal the schisms of the churches. If I'm wrong about the role of the Bishop of Rome, so be it, but I'm not wrong about the schism of East and West. It's a sin, not an option. I just wish more Orthodox felt that way.

I love you guys (Orthodox Christians not in communion with Rome), but you can be as stubborn as some Popes.

I can understand cizinec's position on this, although I think that there is somewhat a confusion of the roles of Moscow, Constantinople and Rome.

The core issue seems to be that if the Ukrainians in the autocephalous and the 'independent' churches decide to become 'one Ukrainian Orthodox Church', and if this is ratified by Constantinople which is the Mother Church of Kiev, then it would put the Muscovite patriarchal Ukrainian church in a very tenuous situation.

My suspicion is that many of the Muscovite Ukrainian Orthodox would jump ship and join a newly organized Ukrainian Orthodox patriarchate. (Kiev precedes Moscow. Why is Moscow a patriarchate and not Kiev?) I also suspect, though some might have apoplexy, that many Ukrainian Catholics would investigate ways to have this newly organized Orthodox church come into closer relations with Rome and even join the Ukrainian Patriarchal Church under the condition that these Kiev-Rome ties be strengthened.

In preceding posts the notion was presented that were this to happen, and the Ukrainian church were to investigate dual-communion with Constantinople and Rome, then we would have a new type of 'unia'. Reference was made to the Melkite overtures that were rebuffed by the Antiochians. And specifically, that piecemeal reconciliation would not be possible; it has to be the whole of Orthodoxy that ratifies the rapprochement.

The problem lies in the fact that Orthodoxy has not shown the ability to convene an Ecumenical Council of Orthodoxy to even consider the issue. And this has not happened in the last 1,000 years. De-facto, one is forced to say that if piecemeal rapprochement is 'illegal' and not binding upon Orthodoxy, AND Orthodoxy is not able to convene an ecumenical synod to address East-West issues, then we are forced into saying that Orthodoxy is not able to even address the issue, and any overtures from the West will be not responded to.

Hello, West calling!! But the East is disconnected; or no one dares answer the phone. Where does this leave Christianity? Perforce the need of Orthodoxy to speak with one voice, and the more than apparent reality of there not being one voice, then what alternative is there? Reconciliation is certainly the will of the Lord.

We HAVE to be able to forgive each other and receive forgiveness in return. But if Orthodoxy theoretically demands a unanimity but is not able to provide a venue for this to occur, then I fear that the Lord's condemnation is not far behind.

So: let the individual churches work out their reconciliations as the Spirit moves them. And let those not involved, get involved.

The children of Antioch had their opportunity. They blew it.

If the Ukrainians are willing to march forward into mutual forgiveness, then God bless them. Wouldn't it be a real kick in the pants if one of the most persecuted Christian communities on the face of the earth were to pave the way for a major re-unification of the Christian church? [I think that there's a real spiritual point for meditation here. Something about the last being first, etc.]

My bet {and my prayers!} are with the Ukies. They've got guts and the faith in the Gospel to accomplish this.

I beg God's mercy upon the people of Ukraine. May the Lord grant them a great harvest this year, and peace and prosperity for their long-suffering people.

Blessings!

Dr John --

Short of an ecumenical council (with participation of Rome and Orthodoxy), there isn't a likely scenario that would work. Everything before that council is preparatory. Unilateral actions with respect to this or that local church on either side would be counterproductive for the larger dialogue.

Rome recognizes this very well. You note that "The children of Antioch had their opportunity. They blew it.", but you seem to want to ignore the fact that Rome itself isued a letter to the Melkites relating to this effort, stating Rome's view that such unilateral measures were premature, ill-advised and counterproductive for the overall Catholic ecumenical activity ("A second level of involvement necessitates that the sharing of the content of the dialogue not be limited only to the two direct participants: the Patriarchates of the Catholic Greek-Melkites and the Orthodox of Antioch, but that it involve the Confessions with whom the two Patriarchates are in full communion: the Catholic communion for the
former and the Orthodox for the latter. Even the Orthodox ecclesiastical authorities of the Patriarchate of Antioch have brought forth a similar preoccupation. This global implication also will permit averting the risk that some initiatives, meant to promote the full communion at the local level, might give rise to a lack of understanding or suspicions beyond the generosity of the intentions."). Seems that if the Antiochians are to be viewed as having "blown it", the Romans ought to be viewed the same way.

In any case, it seems that everyone officially recognizes that unilateral actions like that one are going to be counterproductive, and are therefore not supportable at this time.

Brendan

Ciznec --

1. If the MP can voice opposition to a visa, do you think he has the legal authority to block it? Of course not. He can oppose in the press, but he cannot dispose legally. Big difference. The real issue is that the Vatican doesn't want to come against the wishes of the Patriarchate.

2. I never doubted the Pope's intentions. Politics are used as a means of achieving those goals, that is all.

3. Orthodoxy would have greater liturgical diversity if we had followed more generally a practice of uniatism, as the Catholic Church has done. It is uniatism that is the main reason (aside for some exceptions like the Maronites) that the Catholic Church displays presently the liturgical diversity that you laud.

Brendan

>>>The current
Russian Orthodox PM was a KGB informant. I separate the PM and the Russian Orthodox Church, Orthodox or not. <<<

Actually, according to archival sources published in Russia, Alexei was no mere informant, but formally a member of the KGB, and a high ranking and highly decorated one at that. Confronted with the evidence, the Moscow Patriarchate responded with a stone wall of silence. In the long term, this failure to face up to the problem of history represents a true failure of metanoia in the Church of Moscow, which will hurt its credibility and ability to reevangelize Russia. Alexei should have followed the example of Romanian Patriarch Teoctist--though, since Alexei's sin went far beyond mere acquiesence with the regime to actively abetting it, I think it would be most Christian (and uplifting) if he retired to a monastery to live out his metanoia in constant prayer and atonement. Failing that, the Synod of the Church of Moscow should order him deposed and sent to a monastery. There are more than ample precedents for that. But as long as Moscow pretends that nothing needs be done, it will continue to look cynical and hypocritical in the eyes of Christians everywhere.

>>>Orthodoxy would have greater liturgical diversity if we had followed more generally a practice of uniatism, as the
Catholic Church has done. It is uniatism that is the main reason (aside for some exceptions like the Maronites) that the
Catholic Church displays presently the liturgical diversity that you laud. <<<

You cannot call the Italo-Greeks (now the Italo-Albanians) "uniates", for they were always under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Rome, even when Rome and Constantinople were in communion. The Church of Rome has always been multi-ritual, even as the Church of Constantinople was prior to 1054.

Also, as I have tried to stress repeatedly, uniatism is not a monolithic phenomenon, and not all Church unions can be laid at the feet of Roman perfidy. The Union of Brest, for instance, was an indigenous movement within the Metropolitanate of Kyiv that occured without the knowledge of Rome, and in the face of the active opposition of the Jesuit Order. Likewise the Union of Uzherod can be viewed as an extention of Brest into the Sub-Carpathian dioceses. The Union of Alba Julia (1701) that created the Romanian Greek Catholic Church was in this mold. And the Melkite Union was the result of internal divisions in the Orthodox Church of Antioch, after a period during which there was considerable de facto communion between Rome and Antioch. It was not the intention of the Damascus faction to break with Orthodoxy, but the Aleppo faction was backed by Constantinople, which elevated this internal disupute into a matter of ecumenical importance. In contrast, the later unions tended to be examples of true "uniatism"; i.e., the establishment of parallel ecclesial structures for the explict purpose of winning over the Orthodox faithful, in the absence of any indigenous sentiment for union. The Bulgarian and Hellenic Churches are examples of this, and their lack of success is an indication of their artificiality. The Russian Greek Catholics are unique, in that they were really the conception of a small circle of Russian and Russophile intellectuals mainly living outside of Russia.

It is a sad fact that most Orthodox do not know the history of the Unia, and are not interested in knowing the history, because the myth is so much more psychologically satisfying to the apparent Orthodox need for external enemies to excuse internal shortcomings. A knowledge of history would also inform the Orthodox that their hands are far from clean when it comes to respecting ecclesial traditions, as the experience of the Armenian, Georgian, Syrian, and Coptic Churches amply demonstrates. Nor is papal absolutism a Roman monopoly, as the behavior of the Ecumenical Patriarchate towards the Slavs during the Phanariot period, to say nothing of the ethnic Greek domination of the Greek Orthodox Churches of Alexandria and Jerusalem likewise illuminates. No pope in recent years would ever act in the arbitrary manner with which the Patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople have acted of late. Conciliarity is sometimes more of a theory than a reality in Orthodoxy.

>>>(Kiev precedes Moscow. Why is Moscow a patriarchate and not Kiev?) <<<

Napoleon's maxim: "God is on the side of the big battalions".

>>"Riiiight. And how will it look when the Pope trapses into Moscow to visit with the Russian Catholics? The Pope has made it abundantly clear that he will not visit unless invited by the MP. Why? Well, it's not like the MP isn't already accusing Catholics of prosyletism. How will it lookk if the Pope rolls in uninvited? The accusations of sheep stealing would never cease."<<

>Perhaps, but that's a political issue, isn't it? The MP isn't *blocking* anything, but simply isn't doing what the Vatican wants it to do.<

I don't think so. The Vatican does not want the MP to isolate itself. This should have been made abundantly clear by the many offers of a pastoral trip to Russia with the approval of the MP. You are continuing to impute motives to the Pope that simply do not hold water.

And yes, the MP is blocking the Pope from visiting his flock in Russia. Think of the fall-out if such a non-MP sanctioned visit took place�the fall-out on Catholics in Russia (Western and Eastern), not just Catholic-MP relations.

>>"Come on now, this is a red herring. As part of the head of Catholicism it's he Pope's responsibility to ensure good relations between Catholics and other religions, especially if they happen to be sister Churches."<<

>Agree to that, but that's not tending to his flock.<

Of course it is. How is helping relations between Catholics and non-Catholics not part of his pastoral duty to Catholics? You�ve lost me.

>>"Anothr way is by letting the MP act the way it wants to. Give someone enough rope and they'll eventually hang themselves."<<

>That's a concurrent strategy as well, I agree. In both cases, the tactic is the same -- try to diminish the role of the MP.<

You have once again confused the result of an action with the motivation for the action.

It seems to me that the Pope is diverting attention to other Orthodox Churches and away from the MP because he�s not getting anywhere with the MP. So what�s his motivation? Corporate reunion with at least one (hopefully all) Orthodox Churches. What�s the result? Better relations with the Ukranians, Armenians, etc. (and even some of the Greeks). But also a cooling between Rome and Moscow. Now that�s not the Pope�s fault because he has done everything reasonable (and more than reasonable) to prevent it. So where does the problem lie?

>>"Thirdly, if he did grant such status and then the new Church had communion with Rome it would be a great sign that such communion is actually possible."<<

>It would simply create more schisms within Orthodoxy. I doubt, based on what the Vatican told the Melkites a few years ago, that the Vatican itself is actually greatly interested in this kind of thing, precisely because of the problems it would cause within Orthodoxy. But that doesn't mean it won't be tried (the Melkites certainly tried it).<

As for creating schism within Orthodoxy, I obviously think that this should be avoided. But at all costs? Not if it means rejecting reunion for a bad reason. And that is something I�ll leave to the Pope to decide.

Regarding the Melkites, Ukranians, and double communion. I don�t know of any details regarding that attempt. However, if both the Pope and the EP are OK with it in the case of the Ukranians then so be it (frankly, I hope they are). I think the major difference would be the input of both Pope and EP.

Again, the double communion is definitely not set in stone. It could be nothing more than a pipe dream. But it would certainly be a fulfillment of Christ�s prayer that �they may all be one.�

Double-communion as a discipline within Ukrainian Church (as agreed to between Rome and EP), would also solve some long standing issues within the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (US), i.e., their relationship with Constantinople as it is viewed by the "Young Turk," (pun intended) lay leadership and their clergy sympathizers

D.

"I don't think so. The Vatican does not want the MP to isolate itself. This should have been made abundantly clear by the many offers of a pastoral trip to Russia with the approval of the MP. You are continuing to impute motives to the Pope that simply do not hold water."

I disagree. I think that the Vatican would like either (1) a visit to Moscow on the Vatican's terms (with the hope that such a visit would soften the MP's stance in ecumenical discussions) or (2) isolation of the Moscow Patriarchate from the remainder of Orthodoxy (with the hope that this would diminish the influence of the MP in the Orthodox representation in the ecumenical discussions). You are correct that Moscow's action will dictate which option Rome chooses to follow. At present, (2) is being pursued because (1) is not an option.

"Of course it is. How is helping relations between Catholics and non-Catholics not part of his pastoral duty to Catholics? You�ve lost me."

That converts every possible trip into a pastoral trip. The Pope could make a trip to Saudi Arabia as a pastoral trip, tending to his own flock, under the definition you've offered.

"Corporate reunion with at least one (hopefully all) Orthodox Churches"

Is that what corporate reunion means? When does it cease to be uniatism and become corporate reunion? The Melkite Union was uniatism but involved the Patriarch himself. I honestly don't think that the Vatican is pursuing a policy of "corporate reunion with particular Orthodox Churches", but rather wants a corporate reunion with all of Orthodoxy. The MP is viewed as an obstacle by many in this regard because the MP continues to take a stiffer stance in the ecumenical dialogue, and so either that stance has to be softened (and the hope is that a Papal trip would help to do that) or that voice has to be diminished. I don't think that the Vatican wants to enter into communion with particular Orthodox Churches and leave others out -- but I do think that efforts are being made to try to diminish and/or soften those voices that are providing an obstacle to the overall Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.

I don't question the motivation. The motivation of the Vatican -- corporate reunion with Orthodoxy -- we agree upon, I think. My point is simply that this goal, this motive, is pursued using all means, including a policy aimed at softening or diminishing the voice of the MP in these matters. Of course the Vatican has the right, and certainly the ability, to do this. But, from the Orthodox perspective, we should at least be aware of what is happening.

"However, if both the Pope and the EP are OK with it in the case of the Ukranians then so be it (frankly, I hope they are)."

You see, if the EP even came close to endorsing that, there would be a schism within Orthodoxy that makes the Old Calendarist schisms look tame. That's my point.

Brendan

You see, if the EP even came close to endorsing that, there would be a schism within Orthodoxy that makes the Old Calendarist schisms look tame. That's my point.

Brendan


You are brilliant...and the only poster on this thread who really and truly and accurately understands the position
of the majority of Orthodox hierarchs and parochial leaders, clergy and laity.


You are exactly on target with your reference to the Old Calendarists.


How ironic it would be if the Old Calendarist hierarchs became the foundation of a new episcopate by the "Continuing Orthodox Church," in case of a re-union with Rome by the majority of Orthodox hierarchs.

"That which the builders rejected has become the [foundation] stone."

And there are plenty of canonical "stones," in Russia, Bulgaria, Servia, Greece, Romania, and even the US to choose from.

b.


[/B][/QUOTE]

So, if I understand Brendan's point, there is no possibility of a reunion of the Orthodox and Catholic churches because any reunion will be regarded by the right-wing as a sell-out to uniatism. And the unilateral actions of any individual church will be condemned because it didn't involve the whole of Orthodoxy, which in itself seems like an impossibility because there's no emperor to call a council.

So, do we just give up?