New Ukrainian Catholic leader to ask Pope for patriarchal status [CWN]

[Friar David, O.Carm]

Originally Posted by KyivAndrew

OK. Away from polemics, back to news:

Pope Benedict XVI greets new head of Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

"With great joy I greet today His Eminence Sviatoslav Shevchuk, the new Major Archbishop of Kyiv-Halych, together with the bishops and faithful who accompany him. I assure my constant prayer to the Blessed Trinity to bless you with gifts, to keep in peace and love the dear Ukrainian people," with these words Pope Benedict XVI began his greetings to the faithful and the church hierarchy during the general audience March 30, 2011, Vatican Radio reports.

Adressing the new head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church personally, Pope Benedict said: "Your Eminence, the Lord called you to ministry and guidance of the noble church of the people, which over a thousand years ago was christened in Kyiv. I am sure that you, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, will lead your church, carrying in her faith in Jesus Christ, according to your own traditions and spirituality in communion with the Holy See, which is the hub of the visible unity, for which many sons and daughters did not spare even to give their lives. In these moments I recall our beloved brother His Beatitude Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, distinguished Major Archbishop. With the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary Mother of God I pray for God's blessing for you, your bishops, priests, monks and nuns and all the faithful."

http://risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news...cs/ugcc/41529/

This may be a foreshadowing of the Vaticans response to the request for a patriarchate. Pope Benedict refered to His Eminence as "Your Eminence" not "Your Beatitude" he also called him, and the former officer holder, Major Archbishop.

[KyivAndrew]

Originally Posted by ByzCath

This may be a foreshadowing of the Vaticans response to the request for a patriarchate. Pope Benedict refered to His Eminence as "Your Eminence" not "Your Beatitude" he also called him, and the former officer holder, Major Archbishop.

Yes, I noticed that too. We shall have to wait and see; the Ukrainian Catholic delegation is still in Rome for the next several days I believe.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by ByzCath

This may be a foreshadowing of the Vaticans response to the request for a patriarchate. Pope Benedict refered to His Eminence as "Your Eminence" not "Your Beatitude" he also called him, and the former officer holder, Major Archbishop.

Wouldn't he address HB Sviatoslav on what his position is today, and not what it could be later on? You don't call a seminarian "Father" until he is actually ordained a priest.

[Friar David, O.Carm]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Wouldn't he address HB Sviatoslav on what his position is today, and not what it could be later on? You don't call a seminarian "Father" until he is actually ordained a priest.

Yes but imagine what would have happened if he did address him as "Your Beatitude" and called him patriarch? After all the UGCC Synod has elected a patriarch, Rome just does not recognize this fact. All the Holy Father would be doing is recognizing the fact of this.

As far as the UGCC is concerned they elected a patriarch.

So to follow your analogy it would be like continuing to call a priest who was ordained in the diocese next to yours a seminarian because he was not ordained by your diocese's bishop.

[KyivAndrew]

Hmmm.....well in the Ukrainian language story from Radio Vatican, it shows HH Benedict XVI addressing "Блаженнішого Святослава Шевчука" which in Ukrainian can mean His Beatitude Sviatoslav Shevchuk (at least as it is commonly used) as well as "Ваше Блаженство" which can mean "Your Eminence."

http://www.radiovaticana.org/ucr/Articolo.asp?c=474162

I don't have time right now to read all the stories until tonight, in English, Ukrainian. The perils of language.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by ByzCath

Yes but imagine what would have happened if he did address him as "Your Beatitude" and called him patriarch? After all the UGCC Synod has elected a patriarch, Rome just does not recognize this fact. All the Holy Father would be doing is recognizing the fact of this.

As far as the UGCC is concerned they elected a patriarch.

So to follow your analogy it would be like continuing to call a priest who was ordained in the diocese next to yours a seminarian because he was not ordained by your diocese's bishop.

I believe it will happen sometime, but not overnight. It probably won't happen in the next year or so. But HB Sviatoslav is 41, it will happen within his lifetime.

[Aramis]

Alexander,

His Grace Met. Hilarion does not speak for the Russian Church in any real authoritative sense, and quite often, he's been disconnected with what the mainstream bishops of the Russian Church are saying. He's a metropolitan bishop, delegate to the discussions, and a member of the synod, nothing more. An influential member of the synod, perhaps... but..

Unless echoed by the synod as a whole, or proclaimed as policy by the patriarch, nothing will have changed from the status quo.

(And HG Hilarion has been extremely condescending and contemptuous about the chances of any rapproachment between Moscow and Rome... if anything, it looks like him being sent to make as little as possible happen at the dialogues.)

And so the ostpolitic is unlikely to be affected by the lone voice crying out "NO!!!" in the wilderness...

[mardukm]

Originally Posted by ByzCath

This may be a foreshadowing of the Vaticans response to the request for a patriarchate. Pope Benedict refered to His Eminence as "Your Eminence" not "Your Beatitude" he also called him, and the former officer holder, Major Archbishop.

What is the significance of referring to HE Lubomyr as "His Beatitude," while calling him a Major Archbishop at the same time?

Slowly, but surely?

I'm ambivalent about the matter. I hope the UGCC gets patriarchal status, but I don't see it happening as a solitary act from the Pope. I do believe that an Ecumenical Council is the only Supreme Authority that can grant patriarchal status - per the model of the Church in the first millenium. The Pope has granted the title of "patriarch" in the past, but only within the confines of the Latin Church (obviously not equal to the patriarchal dignity that an Ecumenical Council can grant). The only way I can see this happening is if the Pope calls a special Synod of at least all the Patriarchs and primates in the Catholic Church. But why should he do so? I don't think the needs of one particular Church (if one can even call patriarchal status a "need") is sufficient to enjoin such an action. I think the UGCC should garner explicit support from other heads of local Churches first, so there will be a more collegial rationale behind convening such a special Synod. Just my two cents - an Oriental who really has no business in the affairs of my Eastern brethren.

Blessings,
Marduk

[Spirithound]

Originally Posted by bkovacs

Axios!!. Hope they get it!.

Funny, I just learned this word this morning!

[LumenGent]

On what grounds is the major Archbishop seeking Patriarchal status?

If our Ukrainian brethren and for that matter the whole Catholic Church are adamant on preserving tradition, the seeking of Patriarchal status would undermine such a desire. I agree there is nothing traditional regarding Major Archepiscopal status other than a mere Roman invention, however the historical notion of a Patriachate is owing to a Church by Ecclesial right not by request.

For the sake of preserving unity and tradition, I regard the status of the Ukrainian Church what it was at the time of reunion.

[mardukm]

Dear brother LumenGent,

Originally Posted by LumenGent

On what grounds is the major Archbishop seeking Patriarchal status?

If our Ukrainian brethren and for that matter the whole Catholic Church are adamant on preserving tradition, the seeking of Patriarchal status would undermine such a desire. I agree there is nothing traditional regarding Major Archepiscopal status other than a mere Roman invention, however the historical notion of a Patriachate is owing to a Church by Ecclesial right not by request.

For the sake of preserving unity and tradition, I regard the status of the Ukrainian Church what it was at the time of reunion.

I think that the UGCC DESERVES patriarchal status. My only concern is how this can come about according to the norms of the first millenium Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

[Little Boy Lost]

How was the elevation to the Patriarchate of Bulgaria and Georgia received by the other Patriarchs of the original pentarchy? This was surely before the schism.

[mardukm]

Originally Posted by Little Boy Lost

How was the elevation to the Patriarchate of Bulgaria and Georgia received by the other Patriarchs of the original pentarchy? This was surely before the schism.

I'm not sure about Georgia, but my research on Bulgaria indicates its patriarchal status was machinated by the secular power, which would have made it invalid according to a Trullan canon that states any ecclesiastical action forced by the secular power is invalid.

Do you have any links to the matter of the Georgian Church?

Blessings,
Marduk

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by ByzCath

Yes but imagine what would have happened if he did address him as "Your Beatitude" and called him patriarch? After all the UGCC Synod has elected a patriarch, Rome just does not recognize this fact. All the Holy Father would be doing is recognizing the fact of this.

As far as the UGCC is concerned they elected a patriarch.

So to follow your analogy it would be like continuing to call a priest who was ordained in the diocese next to yours a seminarian because he was not ordained by your diocese's bishop.

This is really an excellent post, Rev. Brother!!

Alex

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by LumenGent

On what grounds is the major Archbishop seeking Patriarchal status?

If our Ukrainian brethren and for that matter the whole Catholic Church are adamant on preserving tradition, the seeking of Patriarchal status would undermine such a desire. I agree there is nothing traditional regarding Major Archepiscopal status other than a mere Roman invention, however the historical notion of a Patriachate is owing to a Church by Ecclesial right not by request.

For the sake of preserving unity and tradition, I regard the status of the Ukrainian Church what it was at the time of reunion.

Well, when the the UGCC was acknowledged by Rome as a Major Archbishopric (which means it has all patriarchal privileges save for the title), it was declared that the Ukrainian Catholic Church ALWAYS WAS a Major Archbishopric from the very beginning. This means, therefore, that it was a Major Archbishopric at the time of the Union of Brest in 1596.

In other words, in 1596, Rome acknowledged the UGCC as a Major Archbishopric (with full patriarchal privileges save for the actual title etc.).

In fact, from the time of the Baptism of Kyivan Rus'-Ukraine into Holy Orthodoxy in 988, the Kyivan Metropolitan wore patriarchal robes and fulfilled various sacramental roles that were reserved to patriarchs. His jurisdiction during the first five centuries of the Kyivan Church was over FIVE times that of the Byzantine Empire.

So the right of Kyiv/Kiev to patriarchal status has been there since 988, also given its Apostolic Foundation by the Apostle St Andrew. It was THIS tradition that Moscow took to itself and upon which it bases ITS patriarchate which is recognized by Rome and Orthodoxy.

Given the statements on patriarchal status for EC Church in the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches, the de facto patriarchal status of the UGCC's Major Archbishopric and the fact of its development as a Particular EC Church which makes it the largest EC Church today - what possible reason could Rome give for not acknowledging the UGCC as the Patriarchate it has already declared itself to be?

This is THE issue. Rome's response to His Beatitudinence on this score will be heard by all members of the UGCC.

This time around, Rome's refusal will be widely acknowledged for what it is - Rome's continued desire to stay in bed with Moscow.

And Moscow didn't even respect Rome in the morning . . .

Our traditional Roman Catholic friends here can preach all they want to us about the Roman Papacy.

Save your breath! We have the martyrs and confessors to prove our loyalty in advance of your apologetic sermons!

Either Rome will take this opportunity to show us that it truly IS the historic Papacy that supports those who are loyal to it.

If elder Rome wants to be with Moscow the Third Rome, we can always gather around Kyiv as our New Jerusalem.

The ball is squarely in Rome's forecourt. All I can say, judging from what I've been hearing, is that it better not screw up this time.

Alex