www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Kyivan Patriarchate

Glory to God for all things!

Dear friends,

What an interesting thread! Most of my fellow parishoners at St. Andrew are supportive of the restoration of the Russian Orthodox-Catholic Exarchate under the authority of a Kyivan Patriarch. Such a structure would follow the model elaborated by Alex, Don in Kansas, Diak and others. You might be interested to know that contemprary Russians do venerate Hieromartyr Andrej as the first "Patriarch" of the Russian Othodox-Catholic Church. There is less consensus regarding Hieroconfessor Josyf.

Alex, what were some of the objections raised by Russians during the time you were assisting Hieroconfessor Josyf? I can think of a few Russian priests who would have been supportive: Archimandrite John Mowatt, Fr. George Maloney, SJ, Fr. Alexis Floridi, SJ, and possibly Fr. Karl Patzelt, SJ. Can you name any others? Was Bishop Andrej Katkov, MIC (Russian) supportive of placing the Russian Church under Patriarch Josyf? How about Bishop Ceslaus Sipovich, MIC (Belarusian)?

Presviataya Bogoroditse Fatimskaya, spasi nas.
RusOrthCath martyrs and confessors, pray for us.

[ 07-09-2002: Message edited by: PaulOrthCathConfessor ]

As you know, I agree with Lance and prefer Byzantine Catholic.

As for my Church having a Patriarchate..... I wish, we only have a Metropolitian, as a matter of fact he was installed today I believe....

As for attending a Melkite parish, I am one of three displaced, or should I say misplaced, Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics.

David

Alex, I think that your thoughts on our Church are dated. Although the reality that you speak of does exist, especially in the diaspora where most of our people are good and loyal, Polonized Ukrainians. This is not the vision our Patriarch (ah, hem . . . Major Archbishop) is putting forth.

See for yourself:



One step at a time, first the Church will be a Church for Ukrianians, but this step must evolve into a larger dimension. Especially with regards to the horrid situation in Belarus'! This Church should not be turned into a seperate ethnic Church, but return to the Kyivan Metropolia, which is her mother. I think that the quotes below speak of a changing church. The Sobor presented a unified decision and spoke in a unified voice. The laity and clergy all spoke with one voice and demanded a patriarchate for our Church. Rome will be foolish to ignore this for too long.




I see very positive signs in all of these reports.
This does not appear to be a group of fragmented quarreling interest groups, but rather a unified church!

"Oh the times . . . they are a changin'" ~ Dylan

For the full story go to:

UGCC [ugcc.org.ua]

God willing,

I will be priveledged to attend the next Sobor in five years!

ALity

[ 07-09-2002: Message edited by: ALity ]

[ 07-09-2002: Message edited by: ALity ]

But I will agree with you that it won't be easy and will take some work in mitigating a Ukrainian-dominated ethnic identification with a Kyivan church.

After speaking to two of our hierarchs specifically about the Russian Catholics, I do not think the "ethnicity thing" is in any way an insurmountable issue. The history of Metropolitan Andrey and his care for the Russian Catholic Church can't and won't be forgotten. The process will not be without some turbulence, I'll admit.

Speaking of diversity, there was even an African-American fellow at Mt. Tabor in California for a while.

I will be serving as subdeacon for the diaconal ordination of a Russian Catholic man, one of my closest friends, in about three weeks at the hands of Ukrainian Catholic Bishop Basil Losten. Father David Anderson's parish in Northern California is in the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of St. Nicholas in Chicago but doesn't use any Ukrainian, and has weekly Vespers and Orthros. He was a former liturgical consultor for the OCA.

There really is strength with unity, and the Kyivan Patriarchate can be the means towards that unity among Catholics of the Cyrillo-Methodian/Kyivan tradition. Great movements start with ideas and vision. The situation is very complex, that's a given, but I believe we will have a Kyivan Patriarchate, hopefully in my life time and my children's.

[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Diak ]

[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Diak ]

He was baptized into our church last year and took the Christian name of Francis.

ALity

Diak stated:

"Father David Anderson's parish in Northern California is in the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of St. Nicholas in Chicago but doesn't use any Ukrainian, and has weekly Vespers and Orthros. He was a former liturgical consultor for the OCA."

He was at my parish for I don't know maybe a year or 2 but anyways he got our English Liturgy Tridentine crowd to start singing the Liturgy. He also started a Spanish Liturgy which wasn't accepted at all by the majority of parishioners (bait for ALity ). I have heard he is doing great things up in Northern California.

Back on topic, in my humble opinion, we have a Kyivan Patriarchate currently seated in L'viv, but that's just me.

It will be intersting to see when Rome will recognize the Kyivan See. I hope it will bring the UOC-KP and UAOC and the UGCC all into one united Kyivan Church. I remeber meeting a member of the UOC-KP at the Papal Divine Liturgy in Kyiv. We actually talked to a lot of Ukrainian Orthodox faithful in Kyiv who were supportive, unlike the MP folks.

I think a United Kyivan Church is comming soon in our future, and we will all be able to take part of it. St. Sofia's, here we come.

ukrainian(kyivan)catholic

[ 07-10-2002: Message edited by: ukrainiancatholic ]

".
Really, we go from: a rumor (with the usual "Latin" and "Bishop Elko" zingers thrown in to get the salivating started); to "if that's true..."; to "the recent debacle". Notwithstandng Lance's temperate remarks.

I certainly agree that more minds are better (at least in principle) than fewer in undertaking reforms, and that the smallness of our church makes this harder for us. I also anxious about our practices deviating from those of our Mother and Sister in Europe (I assume, Diak, that you mean Muckachevo as our church of origin).

But I also think that for us, every suggestion of change evokes an immediate, "Ne treba.". I hope to get a better sense of what we are talking about and how it works before deciding that has been or there is about to be debacle.

djs

Dear Diak,

Perhaps I am showing my age.

But I've learned to be more realistic about religious issues such as this.

It is very easy to consider things from our own perspective as if there was ONLY one perspective and there are more, especially when it comes to the Ukrainian Church.

Don't take my word for it. Take the word of history.

Go ahead and say all you want from an idealistic perspective here.

But if Rome actually DOES acknowledge the Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate, and it will not, then you can prescribe a suitable public penance for me which I will be only too happy to fulfill.

Again, there is nothing here that I haven't really seen before in terms of renewed hopes, dreams and, unfortunately, delusions.

Sorry, but I think I have a few more years working on behalf of the Patriarchate then you youngins.

And please don't tell me that your agricultural experience makes you a tough guy to reckon with, Subdeacon!

I grew up working apiaries with a father who was a beekeeper. At one point he had over 700 colonies.

A stinging indictment, no?

Alex

Alex,
Could you inform us with statistics? Of course they wouldn't be exact but what would be the percentage of Ukrainians for and aginst and let's say neutral for the Patriarchate in Canada.
And could anybody on this thread give approximate numbers for the USA? and or any other country that they might know about? Does anybody have names of let's say of organizations and or influencial people that are against the Ukie Patriarchate?
Lauro

Alex,

For the sake of argument, lets say that the Cardinal does move the seat of his archeparchy from Lviv to Kyiv and Rome does acknowledge the Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate.

Why would the Byzantine Catholic Church wish to place itself under this new patriarch when this patriarch can not act as patriarch in his own Ukrainian Catholic Church in North America?


David

Dear Ipreima,

There were some Basilian churches that used to ask you whether you were for or against the use of the title "Patriarch" for Joseph Slipyj.

If you said you were in support, then they didn't let you into the church. Patriarch Joseph sometimes had to send priests to confess these people during Lent in the streets. Sad, but true.

This would depend on the parish, if it is Pro-Byzantine or Pro-Latin. We have parishes here in Toronto that commemorate the Patriarch, while others refer to him as "Major Archbishop."

When we had a Basilian priest fill in at our parish way back when, and I knew he never commemorated the "Patriarch," he was scolded by one of the priests and told to commemorate the patriarch no matter what he felt or what orders he was under from elsewhere.

And he did . . .

And ultimately, we have had bishops who pay lip service to their support for a patriarchate, but when push came to shove, they stayed silent.

There are no such statistics. It would not matter to the "anti-patriarchalists" if there were, since they would say that the "Church is not a democracy."

Alex

Dear David,

Very good question.

I don't see why the Byzantine Catholic Church, or any other Eastern Catholic Church with "Rusyn roots" would want to.

The ethnic factor will continue to play an important role. Whenever I meet Ukrainians who say that it won't - I am just bewildered.

While I believe all Ukie Catholics will assume any Rome-approved Patriarch of theirs will have jurisdiction over the entire Diaspora, that would have to be determined.

With such a Patriarch in hand, will Rome stop appointing bishops for us unilaterally in North America and elsewhere?

To what extent will the Roman administrative grip be loosened?

Will we be left with a divided Church, with the Patriarch looking after business in Ukraine and our Rome-appointed bishops in the Diaspora doing what Rome tells them or what they THINK Rome would like them to do?

And what about things like the right of Particular Churches to glorify their own local saints and some other points that Orthodox Autocephalous Churches are in possession of and that we should be able to expect to also possess by way of ecclesial powers?

Or will this Patriarchate, if it ever comes and I believe it won't, not under the present circumstances where Moscow is involved, be simply a titular thing with no real administrative teeth in its mouth?

We Ukies have proven quite capable of doing lots of public relations about things that are really figments of our imagination.

We build all sorts of "patriarchal" institutions and so put the cart before the horse.

If we could EVER manage to have ALL Ukie Catholics acknowledge our Patriarch uniformly, then that just MIGHT be a step in the right direction.

But that will never be the case and so the patriarchalists look to Rome to see if it can impose a patriarchal structure on our Church so that those who are against it or else indifferent toward it will accept it if only BECAUSE it is as the result of a Vatican initiative rather than our own.

President Kuchma is also very much like that. He supports any Church that is connected to authority outside Ukraine and that is not "simply Ukrainian" such as the UOC, Moscow Patriarchate and, of course, the Ukrainian Catholic Church which is connected to the Pope.

This kind of soul-searching that I am engaged in here goes way back and by comparison to other, older Ukrainians who were much more involved in the patriarchal movement, what I have to say is rather tame.

Alex

Dear Ality,

The problem is that Galician Ukrainians have tended to "universalize" their own Church perspective onto all other Ukrainians.

We too are of the Galician perspective in this way.

And we think of Ukraine as one big potential Ukie "Orthodox-Catholic" patriarchate while forgetting the real differences that drastically separate us from our Orthodox colleagues, if only those generated by centuries of hatred and suspicion.

I know of one rather misguided Ukrainian Catholic priest and theology professor who went on a "mission" into Ukrainian Orthodox territory.

When asked what Orthodox jurisdiction he belonged to, he replied that he was "Universal Orthodox" (Vselensky Pravoslavny).

What the heck is that? That is masquerading as something one is not. If we Ukie Catholics want to become Orthodox and join in one Patriarchate with our Orthodox brothers, then let's just say so and start another thread .

Otherwise, my eyes are beginning to hurt from the brightness of all this ill-advised and surreal idealism I see around here.

I used to be like you. Reality checks led me to a more pragmatic way of thinking and conclusion.

And as for your guys calling me "dated" or "showing my age," I don't mind.

But this kind of response shows that either you are not sure of your own positions, haven't mapped out your long-term strategy, or just plain don't have arguments, apart from the heavy panting that comes from idealistic excitement, to back up your predictions.

I'm willing to wait this out to see how the "Rome/Moscow" situation plays out.

Time will tell. And you know my predictions for what will happen to our Church - and your idealism.

Until then, sit tight and grow old with me.

Alex

Alex,
I do believe that this is the final episode of the Ukie Patriarchate. If Rome does not confirm the Patriarchate this time with Ukie National government approval and with Pariarchal residence and Church situated in the city of Kyiv. I believe that their will be many Greek Catholics, that will convert to one of the Ukie Orthodox Churches, because they will feel abandoned and why not say betrayed by Rome. I don't think it will be a very bright manuever for Rome to do so. I would be one that would feel ashamed, very sad and discontent with the Vatican but then as you say Alex, I would stop dreaming and maybe become more realistic as you are.
Lauro

Dear Paul,

I really don't know about any Russian Catholics who would have supported having an Exarchate in union with a Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate!

Speakers at pro-patriarchal events I attended almost always mentioned the Russian and Belarusan Catholics and other smaller Eastern Catholic groups and their future relationship with a proposed Kyivan Catholic Patriarchate.

We always thought that was just wishful thinking on the speakers' part!

Russian Catholics, in general, tended not to support Patriarch Slipyj.

The irony is that Met. Andrej never appropriated the term "Patriarch" to himself, but Josef Slipyj did.

However, one COULD make the argument that the Ukrainian Catholic Church always was a patriarchate (just as it always was a Major Archbishopric).

In that case, "Patriarch Andrej" would be appropriate.

Alex.