Why not institute a Ukrainian Patriarchate?

Hello all:

I did not want to hijack Stumbler’s thread on the Russian Patriarch’s setting criteria for a papal visit, so I’m starting this new thread.

I’m posing the same question to both the Catholics and the Orthodox and to both the Ukrainians and the non-Ukrainians around here: Why shouldn’t the Vatican recognize Cardinal Husar as Catholic Patriarch of Kiiv?

1. It wouldn’t change his authority a whit.
2. Ukrainians all seem to want it, and they deserve to get their wish, for many reasons.
3. It is well within the traditional practice of the East, as far as I can tell. All the patriarchates are really national churches, the EO’s have been making new national churches into patriarchates for centuries now, Ukraine has been a nation now for centuries, and now it is finally independent. Independence among the EO’s always brings autocephaly, doesn’t it?
4. Why should non-Ukrainians and non-Catholics be allowed a veto power over a Catholic nation’s legitimate aspirations? Why would they presume to demand such a veto? Is this not (Russian?) imperialism? After all, this movement for a Ukrainian patriarchate originated among the Ukrainians themselves and is obviously not a Vatican ploy.
5. Why should the Vatican in effect be in league with the Russian Orthodox on this issue against the Ukrainian Catholics, especially since the Russians have been so rotten to everybody? Some say the Vatican attitude should change to, “To hell with them!”

I’d like to hear your opinions.

Regards,
Joannes

[quote=Joannes]Hello all:

I did not want to hijack Stumbler’s thread on the Russian Patriarch’s setting criteria for a papal visit, so I’m starting this new thread.

I’m posing the same question to both the Catholics and the Orthodox and to both the Ukrainians and the non-Ukrainians around here: Why shouldn’t the Vatican recognize Cardinal Husar as Catholic Patriarch of Kiiv?

1. It wouldn’t change his authority a whit.
2. Ukrainians all seem to want it, and they deserve to get their wish, for many reasons.
3. It is well within the traditional practice of the East, as far as I can tell. All the patriarchates are really national churches, the EO’s have been making new national churches into patriarchates for centuries now, Ukraine has been a nation now for centuries, and now it is finally independent. Independence among the EO’s always brings autocephaly, doesn’t it?
4. Why should non-Ukrainians and non-Catholics be allowed a veto power over a Catholic nation’s legitimate aspirations? Why would they presume to demand such a veto? Is this not (Russian?) imperialism? After all, this movement for a Ukrainian patriarchate originated among the Ukrainians themselves and is obviously not a Vatican ploy.
5. Why should the Vatican in effect be in league with the Russian Orthodox on this issue against the Ukrainian Catholics, especially since the Russians have been so rotten to everybody? Some say the Vatican attitude should change to, “To hell with them!”

I’d like to hear your opinions.

Regards,
Joannes
[/quote]

I agree 100%

[4. Why should non-Ukrainians and non-Catholics be allowed a veto power over a Catholic nation’s legitimate aspirations? Why would they presume to demand such a veto? Is this not (Russian?) imperialism? After all, this movement for a Ukrainian patriarchate originated among the Ukrainians themselves and is obviously not a Vatican ploy. ]

When did Ukraine become a Catholic nation?

Orthodoc**

[quote=Orthodoc][4. Why should non-Ukrainians and non-Catholics be allowed a veto power over a Catholic nation’s legitimate aspirations? Why would they presume to demand such a veto? Is this not (Russian?) imperialism? After all, this movement for a Ukrainian patriarchate originated among the Ukrainians themselves and is obviously not a Vatican ploy. ]

When did Ukraine become a Catholic nation?

Orthodoc**When? When they recieved the Faith though Ss Cyril and Methodius, the Apostles to the Slavs.

When did it stop being one?

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is already a Patriachate. The Holy Synod of Bishops already voted and elected their Major Archbishop a Patriarch. All they are waiting for is for others to recognize this.

If you attend a Divine Liturgy you will hear the patriarch commemorated, if you do not understand Ukrainian then attend one of the English Liturgies and you will hear it there too.

And one final nit to pick. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is Catholic so this thread should not have been placed in the “Non-Catholic Religions” topic.
[/quote]

[quote=ByzCath]When? When they recieved the Faith though Ss Cyril and Methodius, the Apostles to the Slavs.

When did it stop being one?

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is already a Patriachate. The Holy Synod of Bishops already voted and elected their Major Archbishop a Patriarch. All they are waiting for is for others to recognize this.

If you attend a Divine Liturgy you will hear the patriarch commemorated, if you do not understand Ukrainian then attend one of the English Liturgies and you will hear it there too.

And one final nit to pick. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is Catholic so this thread should not have been placed in the “Non-Catholic Religions” topic.
[/quote]

ByzCath is right again!:slight_smile:

Hello David and all:

I don’t dispute anything of what you’ve said, David. Other national churches have become patriarchates by their own declaration, so why not the Ukrainians? As I recall the Russians (i.e., Moscow)did this without any permission from Constantinople, and this after they had gotten the Kyiv metropolitan (wasn’t it Cardinal Isadore?)to take up residence there. Why are the various Eastern Orthodox churches so adamant against a Ukrainian patriarchate? I can understand the Russians, but what about the others? I’d like your thoughts.

So I was only speaking of the recognition of this patriarchate by others like Moscow and Constantinople and, especially, Rome. I think Rome’s motives are basically praiseworthy in that they seem founded on a desire to be sensitive to the separated East, as the entire East is always demanding that she be. But on this issue she is damned if she does, and damned if she doesn’t.
I’d like your thoughts.

I only placed this thread here in the Non-Catholic section because of the context it involves. I did not mean thereby to suggest that Ukrainian Catholics are in any way “non-Catholic”.

Regards,
Joannes

Joannes:

Before we go into the “whys and wherefores” for another Ukrainian Patriarchate, let’s consider first the current composition of the “national” Church of Ukraine, from largest down:

(1) Ukrainian Orthodox Church–Moscow Patriarchate;
(2) Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (pending Patriarchate);
(3) Ukrainian Orthodox Church–Kyiv Patriarchate;
(4) Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

And, (5) the Catholic Church in Ukraine, Latin Rite.

I think there should be a re-unification of the native Churches first before even considering the elevation of the UGCC into a “Catholic” patriarchate.

Dear David,

I note with melancholy amusement your request that the topic should not be in the “non-Catholic” forum. I recall begging others to support a move to start a separate forum for Eastern concerns, and your complaint is one of the very reasons why I felt it was necessary. But most people did not want Eastern Christians to be “isolated.”

God bless,

Greg

(1) Ukrainian Orthodox Church–Moscow Patriarchate;
(2) Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (pending Patriarchate);
(3) Ukrainian Orthodox Church–Kyiv Patriarchate;
(4) Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

And, (5) the Catholic Church in Ukraine, Latin Rite.

I think there should be a re-unification of the native Churches first before even considering the elevation of the UGCC into a “Catholic” patriarchate.

Before considering Patriarch for Greek Catholics such a miracle must happen!!!

Metropolit of Moscow/Vladimir and Metropolit of Kyiv and also the infrequent Metropolit of Halich have since time of Dmitri Donskoi been at odds. Russian Patriarchate was created under Patriarch Ieremia the Great of Constantinople although he was held by Boris Godunov as almost prisoner to accomplish such. Russian patriarch did not occur without consent Konstantinople. Widely believed at time that Rus’ would be the fifth patriarchate of the ancient pentarchy to replace Roman patriarch.

After death of Patriarch Pimen of Moscow Metropolit Filaret Dinicenko and Aleksei were considered to be Moscow Patriarch. Aleksei now Moscow Patriarch. Filaret became second Ukrainian patriarch after death of Mstislav first Patriarch of Kyiv. Moscow does not approve.

Lubomyr Husar to be patriarch and now Rome does not approve. Probably should not matter. Too many people telling Ukrainians what tod.

[When? When they recieved the Faith though Ss Cyril and Methodius, the Apostles to the Slavs.]

The Ukrainians did not receive their faith through Sts Cyril & Methodius as you claim. They didn’t become christians until 988 when they received their faith thru the efforts of St Vladimir when he chose Constantinople over Rome. Since St Cyril died in 869 and his brother St Methodius died in 885, it means that the Ukrainians were still bowing down to carved tree trunks when both saints walked this earth!

[When did it stop being one?]

You are technically right. So let me reophrase the question. When did Ukraine become a Roman Catholic nation? It’s been Catholic since 988 but it is not now, nor has it ever been a Roman Catholic nation. It’s has always been predominately Orthodox Catholic.

[The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is already a Patriachate. The Holy Synod of Bishops already voted and elected their Major Archbishop a Patriarch. All they are waiting for is for others to recognize this.]

[If you attend a Divine Liturgy you will hear the patriarch commemorated, if you do not understand Ukrainian then attend one of the English Liturgies and you will hear it there too.]

Only out of ear shot of the Pope!

Orthodoc

[quote=Orthodoc][When? When they recieved the Faith though Ss Cyril and Methodius, the Apostles to the Slavs.]

The Ukrainians did not receive their faith through Sts Cyril & Methodius as you claim. They didn’t become christians until 988 when they received their faith thru the efforts of St Vladimir when he chose Constantinople over Rome. Since St Cyril died in 869 and his brother St Methodius died in 885, it means that the Ukrainians were still bowing down to carved tree trunks when both saints walked this earth!

[/quote]

Please read what I said again. I said, “When they recieved the Faith though Ss Cyril and Methodius, the Apostles to the Slavs.”

Again, I said though, not from. St Vladimir recieved the Faith though Ss Cyril and Methodius. With out Ss Cyril and Methodius the Faith would never have made it to the Slavic nations and the Slavic nations would not have gotten a written language.

[When did it stop being one?]

You are technically right. So let me reophrase the question. When did Ukraine become a Roman Catholic nation? It’s been Catholic since 988 but it is not now, nor has it ever been a Roman Catholic nation. It’s has always been predominately Orthodox Catholic.

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is not Roman Catholic.

[quote=Orthodoc]Only out of ear shot of the Pope!
[/quote]

It is sarcasm such as this that only deepens the schism.:frowning:

"…So did the Orthodox Church take a united stand against the man who has now been elected and who is reportedly a member of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (as is his wife)? The answer is no.

There is schism among Ukrainian Orthodox, with three separate jurisdictions within the same territory. Before independence in 1991, the Moscow Patriarchate stood alone in Ukraine, dominating church life there as surely as the Kremlin and communism ruled the political sphere. Just before this, Moscow had suffered a devastating blow: the relegalisation, during Mikhail Gorbachev’s last days, of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the West, that part of Ukraine which had not been under Soviet control until the westward march of the Soviet Army in the Second World War. In 1946 Stalin’s henchmen liquidated the Church of the people there, once designated as “Uniate” — a Church which celebrated the liturgy according to the Orthodox model, had a married priesthood (though celibate bishops), but was also fiercely loyal to the Vatican. Moreover, it contained a nucleus of Ukrainian nationalism. Stalin believed that by forcing the Greek Catholics to become Orthodox and imprisoning all the bishops, he could force people to transfer their loyalty to Moscow. Although some of the clergy, fearing for the lives of their families, yielded, Stalin had buried a time bomb, which ticked away for 40 years until Gorbachev’s policies opened the way for the old wrongs to be righted.

The Moscow patriarchate, in retreat, nevertheless continued to dominate the majority of the churches in the Russian-speaking areas of central (around Kiev) and eastern Ukraine. However, a strong minority established a schismatic jurisdiction, the Kiev Patriarchate, which supported Ukrainian independence.

Yet a third jurisdiction came into being, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, which traced its origins back to the brief years after 1917 when Ukraine was an independent state and before it was liquidated after the imposition of Soviet control. These churches offered mostly tacit support for Yushchenko.

However, on November 20, the day before the rigged election, the head of the Moscow jurisdiction, Metropolitan Volodymyr, perhaps recoiling from President Putin’s blatant interference in the process, seemed to feel a chill wind. He called on both candidates to “stand together against those who want to sow discord” and quoted the words of the great poet Taras Shevchenko: “Love your Ukraine and pray for it.” Opposition voices within the Moscow jurisdiction then became stronger. Early last month, three priests and a group of laymen circulated an open letter calling on President Kuchma and Yanukovych to resign.

After the falsified election, events in church circles were now moving as fast as in the political sphere. Amid the turmoil, Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, head of the Greek Catholic Church, pointed out on December 5 that “the root of the crisis remains an immoral regime which has deprived the Ukrainian people of their legitimate rights and dignity”, but ten days later his synod of bishops issued a statesman-like call to their clergy “not to take part in election campaigning and not to limit the rights of the faithful”.

There was one remarkable ecumenical Christian intervention from outside. Anticipating, as it were, the visit of President Saakashvili of Georgia to congratulate Yushchenko on December 31, a group of three clergymen from Tbilisi occupied the rostrum on Independence Square earlier in the month and addressed a rally. By now Ukrainian TV was carrying the full story of the demonstrations, so the sight of these three — two Georgian Orthodox clerics, Fathers Basil Kobakhidze and Zaza Tevzadze, unofficially led by the head of the Georgian Baptist Church, Bishop Malkhaz Songulashvili — carried a strong message. These men had been prominent in the movement for democracy in Georgia a year earlier and Bishop Malkhaz had several times suffered physical assault from fanatical elements in the Orthodox Church. …"
.

The Moscow patriarchate, like Putin himself, has lost an immense amount of face. Patriarch Aleksei II in Moscow issued a defensive statement last week in which he said: “I expect the new President of Ukraine will have enough wisdom to go the way of unity and not confrontation” — which is being interpreted in Kiev as both directive and patronising.
Authoritarianism has taken a sharp blow, while independent Christian voices have shown themselves both moderate and effective, raising their stock in Ukrainian society.

Canon Michael Bourdeaux is the founder and president of Keston Institute, Oxford, which monitors religious freedom in the communist

timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,1-118-1429937,00.html

Hello Amado:

Your words make sense to me, but is sense enough in the East?

I’m wondering how we ignorant foreigners can decide which of these is the rightful claimant to represent the Ukrainian nation, except through someone else’s approbation, say, Rome’s, as Constantinople can’t give it, and Moscow is most of the problem? (That’s why I am in communion with the Ukrainian Byzantine Catholics, of course, and for that matter with the Ukrainian Roman-rite Catholics, as they both are in communion with Rome.)

But what is the story on these other groups?

I suppose that group (1), the Ukrainian Orthodox Church–Moscow Patriarchate, is the canonical one, being sort-of “grandfathered in” in Ukraine from the time of the Russian Empire (tsarist or communist), though it seems odd in the EO framework for one EO church to have to submit to the domination of another in order to be canonical.

I suppose that group (3), the Ukrainian Orthodox Church–Kyiv Patriarchate, in some eyes is a “renegade” group not recognized by others, somewhat like the Macedonian Orthodox Church (that I hear has even looked into communion with Rome) is? Is this group (3) not the one headed by Filaret Denisenko? Why does Volodymir in this thread tell us “After death of Patriarch Pimen of Moscow Metropolit Filaret Dinicenko and Aleksei were considered to be Moscow Patriarch. Aleksei now Moscow Patriarch. Filaret became second Ukrainian patriarch after death of Mstislav first Patriarch of Kyiv. Moscow does not approve”? I gather that this “Kyiv Patriarchate” of Denisenko’s has resulted from a schism in the ROC? Pimen lived only a few years ago, but when did Mstislav live?

Group (4), the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, has been around for years and is quite small. What is its identity?

The situation in Ukraine is certainly a mess, isn’t it, apparently the sad result of foreign domination? Is there any likelihood that the bad blood on the part of the EO groups will be mopped up anytime soon?

Regards,

Joannes

[quote=Amadeus]Joannes:
Before we go into the “whys and wherefores” for another Ukrainian Patriarchate, let’s consider first the current composition of the “national” Church of Ukraine, from largest down:

(1) Ukrainian Orthodox Church–Moscow Patriarchate;

(2) Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (pending Patriarchate);

(3) Ukrainian Orthodox Church–Kyiv Patriarchate;

(4) Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

And, (5) the Catholic Church in Ukraine, Latin Rite.

I think there should be a re-unification of the native Churches first before even considering the elevation of the UGCC into a “Catholic” patriarchate.
[/quote]

[quote=Joannes]Hello all:

I did not want to hijack Stumbler’s thread on the Russian Patriarch’s setting criteria for a papal visit, so I’m starting this new thread.

I’m posing the same question to both the Catholics and the Orthodox and to both the Ukrainians and the non-Ukrainians around here: Why shouldn’t the Vatican recognize Cardinal Husar as Catholic Patriarch of Kiiv?

1. It wouldn’t change his authority a whit.
2. Ukrainians all seem to want it, and they deserve to get their wish, for many reasons.
3. It is well within the traditional practice of the East, as far as I can tell. All the patriarchates are really national churches, the EO’s have been making new national churches into patriarchates for centuries now, Ukraine has been a nation now for centuries, and now it is finally independent. Independence among the EO’s always brings autocephaly, doesn’t it?
4. Why should non-Ukrainians and non-Catholics be allowed a veto power over a Catholic nation’s legitimate aspirations? Why would they presume to demand such a veto? Is this not (Russian?) imperialism? After all, this movement for a Ukrainian patriarchate originated among the Ukrainians themselves and is obviously not a Vatican ploy.
5. Why should the Vatican in effect be in league with the Russian Orthodox on this issue against the Ukrainian Catholics, especially since the Russians have been so rotten to everybody? Some say the Vatican attitude should change to, “To hell with them!”

I’d like to hear your opinions.

Regards,
Joannes
[/quote]

Paul VI refused Archbishop Slipyi’s requests in this direction for several reasons: one of them was that he did not wish to offend the Orthodox.

It hasn’t (perhaps) helped - quite a few Ukrainian-Rite Catholics still want a Patriarchate, and the Orthodox are still not over-friendly to Rome. I don’t know whether to be more sympathetic to the Ukrainians or the Russians - or, indeed, to the Popes.

ISTM that “To hell with them!” is the one attitude to be avoided at all costs, in all circumstances, no matter what. ##

[Why does Volodymir in this thread tell us "After death of Patriarch Pimen of Moscow Metropolit Filaret Dinicenko and Aleksei were considered to be Moscow Patriarch. ]

What Volodymir means is that at the death of Patriarch Pimen Metropolitan Filaret became locum tenets until a new Patriarch of Moscow could be elected. He was one of the three nominations but lost to the other two during the first round of votes.

It was well know that he had a secret wife and three children. He got away with many things because of his KGB ties and Communist buddy friends like Kravchuk. Once communism was no more he lost most of his political supporters. He was very much the Russophile until he was derocked and excommunicated when overnight he became very much the Ukrainian nationalist.

Orthodoc

Hello Michael and Orthodoc:

You are right of course, Michael in saying that my " ‘To hell with them!’ is the one attitude to be avoided at all costs, in all circumstances, no matter what." I know this, but was speaking in irritation. I got the expression, however, from an on-line interview with Fr. Taft, the Vatican expert on the East. His patience with the ROC is clearly spent. He sed the expression in saying that the Ukrainians should get their patriarchate notwithstanding the ROC objections, and that’s how I also used it. I should have given him credit.

And I thank you, Orthodoc, for the explanation of Filaret Denisenko’s background. But how can his followers not see through him? What is in it for them to belong to the church he heads? I take it that they must be mostly Ukrainians who, like the Ukrainian Catholics also, want their own patriarch for reasons of nationalism, while the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate would be mostly composed of ethnic Russians. How long ago did the schism between the UOC-KP and the UOC-MP occur?

Regards,
Joannes

[quote=Amadeus]Joannes:

Before we go into the “whys and wherefores” for another Ukrainian Patriarchate, let’s consider first the current composition of the “national” Church of Ukraine, from largest down:

(1) Ukrainian Orthodox Church–Moscow Patriarchate;
(2) Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (pending Patriarchate);
(3) Ukrainian Orthodox Church–Kyiv Patriarchate;
(4) Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

And, (5) the Catholic Church in Ukraine, Latin Rite.
[/quote]

“I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

Sheesh! :rolleyes:

[What is in it for them to belong to the church he heads? I take it that they must be mostly Ukrainians who, like the Ukrainian Catholics also, want their own patriarch for reasons of nationalism, while the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate would be mostly composed of ethnic Russians. How long ago did the schism between the UOC-KP and the UOC-MP occur?]

It’s called Ukrainian nationalism where national identity, politics, and ethnic hatred take precedence over everything else. It effects both the Orthodox Catholics and the Ukrainian Greek Catholics.

I agree, the best way to end the jurisdictional strife in Ukraine is to give them their autocephally with their own Patriarch. If we Orthodox were smart we would do so. If we did the Orthodox divisions would cease overnight and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church would almost cease to exist. The UGCC’s aren’t running to Rome as much as they are running away from Moscow.

Believe me, the UGCC doesn’t exist because of doctrinal issues or even loyality to the Pope. If they were so loyal they wouldn’t be addressing their Cardinal as Patriarch behind the Popes back after he has forbidden them to do so! It exists because of nationalism and hatred of Moscow. The two non-canonical Orthodox jurisdictions are the same. Metropolitan Filaret understood that and that’s how and why he went from a Russophile to a Ukrainophile overnight and whysome so blindly follow him…

I’m a 100% in favor of an autocephalous Ukrainian Church with its own Patriarch as long as it is what it should be - Orthodox! Which is still the predominate faith and the original faith of the nation!

Orthodoc

Joaanes:

Rarely do I agree with Bob/Orthodoc but I do favor a reunification of the 3 Orthodox jurisdictions as an initial step in cleaning up the “mess.”

If the UGCC wants to join in the fray, God bless them. :wink:

That said and failing to reunite and reconcile, the next “logical” step would be for UOC-KP, UAOC, and the UGCC to hammer things out among themselves and leave out the UOC-MP to its own ROC-MP close ties.

The 3 would then decide whether to co-exist with the UOC-MP as the “new” UOC-KP and declare itself autonomous or autocephalous and wait for world Orthodoxy for eventual recognition.

Or, the UGCC spearheads a recognition of the patriarchate within the Catholic Communion, giving rise to the “normal” ecclesiology of one Orthodox and one Catholic group in Ukraine.

And then, of course, UGCC could use the phrase of Fr. Archimandrite Taft: “to hell with them!”

This, from a non-Ukrainian Roman Catholic. :smiley:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.