Ruskij Sion

Lateline: "Tricky" Ticky Attributes Marital Use of "Dicky" to UGCC's Escape From Scandal

2010-05-28T20:25:00.001+12:00

Here is a transcript from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation dated 27/05/2010. The introduction to this broadcast stated: Ukrainian Catholic priests have so far escaped the sexual scandals rocking the Church worldwide - a feat they attribute to their rare marital permissions.

Here is the interview (original).

TICKY FULLERTON, PRESENTER: It seems not a week goes by without some devastating revelation of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church being reported in the international media.

But there's one nation where the Catholic Church has so far avoided scandal.

It's in Ukraine, where millions follow the Greek Catholic Church, a unique branch of Catholicism, which is loyal to Rome and the Pope but with one major difference.

Its priests are allowed to marry and have families and its followers say that makes all the difference.

The ABC'S Moscow correspondent Norman Hermant reports.

NORMAN HERMANT, REPORTER: It's a scene that plays out all over Ukraine every afternoon. The kids are rounded up for tea and the family gathers around the kitchen table. All part of everyday life here. It's also not unusual that the father is a priest, a Catholic priest.

Oleg Panchinyak is ordained in the Greek Catholic Church. It has never mandated celibacy for its clergy and, says Father Oleg, that makes him a better priest.

FATHER OLEG PANCHINYAK, GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH PRIEST (TRANSLATION): Certainly it's easier for our congregation to deal with me. I can give replies to their questions. I understand what it means to serve in the family and what it means to serve in the Church.

NORMAN HERMANT: Father Oleg's tiny church has been built amidst the sprawling apartment blocks outside Kiev. He leads traditional Greek Catholic services in a church loyal to the Pope in Rome but with many similarities to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Priests have the choice to marry and the congregation thinks that's the way it should be.

FEMALE CONGREGATION MEMBER (TRANSLATION): A family is a continuation of human procreation if one follows the dogma of the Roman Catholic religion there is, in general, no continuation of humanity, the key of everything alive on the earth.

NORMAN HERMANT: Despite the apparent conflict over celibacy, the Vatican has allowed this church to follow its own practices.

Father Oleg's congregation may be small but as this Cathedral, under construction, shows this is not a small church. Greek Catholicism is the dominant religion in the far west of Ukraine and its followers can be found all over the world. In this country alone it's believed about six million people are Greek Catholics.

And, as a church spokesman explains, the sexual abuse scandals that have rocked Catholic churches elsewhere have been absent here.

FATHER VASILY CHUDIYOVICH, KIEV ARCHDIOCESE (TRANSLATION): I do not remember such scandals have ever been registered in the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church.

NORMAN HERMANT: Church leaders here tread carefully on the question of celibacy. No one wants to cast Rome, or the Pope, in a bad light. But they also say there is a link between giving priests the choice to marry and the absence of abuse scandals in their church.

FATHER VASILY CHUDIYOVICH (TRANSLATION): Maybe the possibility to choose, I won't say 'no' to that, that's one of the reasons that the Greek Catholic Church has no such problems in comparison with the church in The Netherlands or in Germany or, in the USA.

NORMAN HERMANT: For the Greek Catholic congregation, acutely aware of the abuse scandals routinely in the headlines, the connection is obvious between the choice to marry and the lack of sexual abuse scandals.

FEMALE CONGREGATION MEMBER 2 (TRANSLATION): I think I'd say yes. I think I'd say yes, the priest is focused on the family, on the normal way of living, that is, a human enjoys all natural things. He does not need anything. That's my opinion.

NORMAN HERMANT: As for Father Oleg, he says he knows no other way.

FATHER OLEG PANCHINYAK (TRANSLATION): I fully understand married priesthood. Why? I understand it more because there is a choice there while the Roman Catholic priests are somehow more restricted.

NORMAN HERMANT: For the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine those restrictions have never been present and neither have scandals involving sexual abuse.

Norman Hermant, Lateline.

To the Voice in the Desert

2010-04-08T05:17:00.014+12:00

Ruskyj Sion dedicates this post to Pope Benedict XVI, the prophet sent to preach against the dictatorship of relativism.

Please also read:

Getting the Facts: Resources - The Holy See

Arrest the Pope: An Atheists Dream - EWTN

The Better Pope - NY Times

The Passion of Pope Benedict. Six Accusations, One Question by Sandro Magister
       Pedophilia is only the latest weapon aimed against Joseph Ratzinger. And each time, he is attacked where he most exercises his leadership role.

Scoundrel Time(s) by George Weigel

The Milwaukee Case : Then-presiding judge for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee gives first-person account of church trial

An Analysis of the Case by a Lutheran: The Dictatorship of Relativism Strikes Back — and Goes Nuclear by John Stephenson

The Wall Street Journal, The Pope and the NY Times

News Busters, Media: Pope Benedict Guilty Until Proven Innocent

A more pastoral take on the issue: Excommunicating Oneself For the Sins of Others

French Bishops Support the Pope: Zenit

The Gates of Hell Will Not Prevail : Time to Defend the Pope

For more articles see: The Catholic League

The Victor

2010-02-25T19:53:00.003+12:00

On 21 February 2010, the first Sunday of the Great Fast, commemorating the Triumph of Orthodoxy, the newly-elected President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych received the blessing of Metropolitan Volodymyr at Kyivan Monastery of the Caves, a stronghold of the Moscow Patriarchate (see article).

Kirill, the Patriarch of Moscow, a VIP guest, will begin the Inauguration Day (25.02.2010) celebrations with a moleben at the Kyivan Monastery of the Caves (see article; see video).

The term "inauguration" is from the Latin augurare, i.e., to prophesy. By observing natural signs, especially the behavior of birds, interpretations were given indicating divine approval or disapproval.

On Inauguration Day, in Kyiv, many observed large flocks of crows flying in from the north-east. Is this a sign of the times?

Only the Shadow Knows

2010-02-14T21:22:00.003+12:00

Ruskij Nostradamus Sion's prediction about Ukraine's Presidential Elections was indeed fulfilled (see below). Yuliya Tymoshenko won in the second round of balloting. Victor Yanukovych, however, will probably be the President of Ukraine. This may seem strange for those who live outside of Putin's shadow; nevertheless, it is important to look beyond the reality to see what is true.

If Victor Yanukovych does indeed take the helm, Nostradamus's third prediction concerning the absorption of the Kyivan Patriarchate back into the Moscow Patriarchate will probably occur with greater facility. The shadow is a parallel universe, where truth doesn't always correspond with reality. Did Filaret ever really leave the Moscow Patriarchate?

Regarding Nostradamus's second prediction more will be said in the future. What can be said at present about the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church is that they will soon announce the creation of three new metropolia in Western Ukraine (L'viv, Ternopil and Ivano-Frankivsk'?).

The Earthly Logic of Judas?

2010-01-29T03:48:00.012+12:00

On 8 December 2009, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church’s Synod of Bishops issued their Synodal Letter on the occasion of the 20^th Anniversary of the Legalisation of the UGCC, the 65^th anniversary of the death of Metropolitan Andrej Sheptysky and the 25^th anniversary of the death of Cardinal Josyf Slipyj (read here).

For the most part it is an eclectic collage of quotations taken from Metropolitan Sheptysky and Cardinal Slipyj, setting forth an “ecumenical fantasy.” The conclusion of the Synodal Letter drifts into an indifferentism that contrasts the essence of Metropolitan Sheptysky’s “vision of Kyivan Church unity” as quoted earlier on in the text: “At the restoration of the Kyivan Metropolia and the future, if God so wills it, elevation of the Kyivan See to the dignity of a Patriarchate, then we [the UGCC] will submit canonically to the Patriarch, when he acknowledges the jurisdiction of the Universal Pontiff” (При відновленні Київської митрополії та при майбутньому, дасть Бог, піднесенні київського престолу до гідності патріархату, ми будемо канонічно підпорядковані тому патріархові, коли він визнає владу Вселенського Архиєрея).

Another point of interest in the Synodal Letter is the moralization concerning the “earthly logic of Judas.” The Synod writes: “Isn’t the world community paying a great price for the uncontrolled immorality in financial affairs? In his Encyclical Letter, Caritas in veritate, Pope Benedict XVI reminded us that human deceitfulness has a financial dimension… Thus to contradict the need for sacrifice is to think as did Judas, who in his own manner loved Christ, but desired for Him the embellishment of power and the self-aggrandisement of a kingly throne, because he [Judas] valued these things above all others. It is this same earthly logic of Judas that we don’t want to recognise in ourselves….” (чи не платить сьогодні світова спільнота велику ціну за безконтрольну аморальність у фінансових справах? Своєю енциклікою «Любов у Правді» (Caritas in Veritate) Папа Венедикт ХVІ якраз нагадав нам, що людська нечесність має фінансовий вимір. [...] Тому заперечувати потрібність жертви – це думати так, як Юда, який по-своєму також любив Христа, але прагнув для Нього розкошів влади й пишноти царського трону, бо ставив він їх понад усе. Саме цю земну логіку Юди ми часом не хочемо визнати в собі самих).

Is this a collective examination of conscience? The Kyivan Sobor Committee is now required to release a yearly financial statement, since the charitable status of some of the UGCC’s eparchies in North America, Continental Europe and the UK has been jeopardized due to the want of such financial statements regarding contributions made to the Kyivan Sobor. Ruskij Sion has touched on this question in the past (see above). Indeed, why hasn’t a more comprehensive financial statement ever been produced indicating how much money has been raised and employed in the Kyivan Sobor’s construction since the blessing of the cornerstone in the late autumn of 2002 up until present (or at least up until December 2009)? Don’t the benefactors and faithful have a right to such transparency? What about Klara Gudzyk’s interview in 2003 with the Basilian Bishop Vasyl Medvit, OSBM, who supervised the construction of the Kyivan Sobor, in which he stated that the 10 million dollar fund raised would be sufficient for the “total cost of the project” and that he was “certain that the cathedral will be completed in 2004” (cf. the Ukrainian newpaper “The Day,” 11.11.2003, read interview here). It is 2010 and the Kyivan Sobor remains unfinished!? What's the logic?

Ruskij "Nostradamus" Sion: Predictions for the Decade Beginning with MMX

2010-01-02T08:49:00.002+12:00

Some predictions for the first years of the next decade:

1) This year Yulia Tymoshenko will win Ukraine’s presidential election in the second round of balloting.

2) Since Cardinal Husar has announced his near retirement (see original), RS predicts the quick rise of Fr. Ivan Datsko within the hierarchy of the UGCC, becoming a candidate for Major Archbishop. The ultimate vote within the UGCC Synod of Bishops, however, will depend on the Redemptorist majority.

3) In the early part of the next decade, the Kyivan Patriarchate will be absorbed back into the Moscow Patriarchate. Filaret could possibly be the Kyivan Patriarchate's first and last patriarch.

Church Decorations

2009-12-31T20:46:00.005+12:00

On 30 December 2009, the Religious Information Service of Ukraine reported two instances of political agitation by priests for candidates in Ukraine's upcoming Presidential elections to be held on 17 January 2009.

In the village of Sernyka (Rivne Oblast'), Fr. Ivan Mul'jar (of the Moscow Patriarchate) "not only encouraged" the faithful to vote for "his candidate," Victor Yanukovych, but also "to curse" the other presidential candidates (see original).

On 29 December 2009, Prime Minister of Ukraine and presidential candidate, Yulia Tymoshenko, visited St. Andrew's Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in Lviv. On the occasion of her visit, Tymoshenko donated a chalice to the church. In return, the Basilian monk and parish priest of St. Andrew's, Fr. Mychajlo Luchkiv, OSBM, gave the Prime Minister a miniature iconastas in the form of eggs (pysanky) decorated with icons together with his public expression of support (see original).

The Ukrainian Council of Churches asked ministers and priests of all denominations not to participate in the political campaign on behalf of the church.

In a recent interview with Dzerkalo Tyzhnja (see No. 42, 31 Oct. - 6 Nov. 2009), Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, stated: "You see, now it's the fashion. All candidates want to have around themselves a religious person as a decoration. The more the decorations, the better. This is not an honour for the church. Rather, this is a utilitarian use of the church for political ends" (Бачите, тепер є така мода: всі кандидати хочуть мати коло себе якусь духовну особу для прикраси. І чим більше прикрас, тим краще. Це не є пошанівок для церкви. Це використовування церкви для своїх політичних цілей).

An Ecumenical Moment?

2009-09-27T03:18:00.013+13:00

The UGCC’s Kolomyjs’k-Chernivets’ Eparchy posted a video news item about the “unity of the Orthodox and Greek Catholics” that took place in Otynija, Ukraine, during the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic parish’s feast-day liturgical celebrations on the Nativity of the Most-Holy Theotokos, 21 September 2009. Apparently, a priest of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate, along with some of his faithful, “took part” in the Divine Liturgy at the UGCC parish. The UGCC Kolomyjs’k-Chernivets' Eparchy’s press centre, however, was forced to clarify this "proclamation of unity," since it gave the impression that the Kyivan Orthodox cleric con-celebrated the Divine Liturgy together with the UGCC clergy. (The video does indeed give this impression.) The clarification states that the Kyivan Orthodox priest was "only present" (although vested) and did not consecrate, nor partake in, the Holy Eucharist (see clarification).

The press centre of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate issued its own statement: “The web-site of the Kolomyjs’k-Chernivets’ Eparchy of the UGCC posted two news items about the “unity of the Orthodox and Greek Catholics” in the region of the Carpathian Foothills. Due to the “double meaning” of such anouncements and the numerous requests for a clarification by the Kyivan Patriarchate on this matter, the Kyivan Patriarchate press centre, with the blessing of His Beatitude Filaret — Patriarch of Kyiv and of all Rus’-Ukraine— issues the following statement:

Despite difficult past relations between the Orthodox and Greek Catholics, which, even at present, is felt in outbursts of antagonism within certain parishes and in the mutual distrust between church representatives, both the Kyivan Patriarchate and the UGCC desire to better their mutual relations, resolve any existing conflicts and reconcile all enmity.
Nevertheless, there exist obstacles, which are unresolvable not only bilaterally (i.e., between the respective churches), but even more so on a merely personal level. Such obstacles include the difference between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches’ dogmatic teachings, especially regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome within the Church. These divergences are an obstacle to Eucharistic unity, which is to be a witness of the full union in faith and in prayer of those who partake.
Canonical practice teaches that the clergy's participation in the Divine Liturgy requires the reception of Christ’s Body and Blood. From the reason stated above, the Orthodox and Greek-Catholics cannot share the same Eucharistic chalice. Therefore, the hierarchy and clergy of the Orthodox Church do not participate in the liturgical celebrations of the UGCC; however, if inivited, they may attend but not in liturgical vestments. Likewise, the hierarchy and clergy of the UGCC cannot actively participate in the liturgical celebrations of the Orthodox Church, but may only be present.
The fact that a bishop [?] and priests of the Kyivan Patriarchate were present in liturgical vestments at the Divine Liturgy in a Greek-Catholic parish and participated in certain parts of the divine services — which can be seen on the above-mentioned web-site — is a violation of canonical practice and is an action of their own doing. Taking this into account, and the scandal caused to the Orthodox faithful by such actions, the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate, during its next session, will require Bishop Ioan of the Kolomyjs’k-Kosivs’k Eparchy to give an explanation and [the Holy Synod] will pronounce judgment” (RS's translation, for original click here).

The Kyivan Patriarchate's position is clear: "Such obstacles include the difference between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches’ dogmatic teachings, especially regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome within the Church. These divergences are an obstacle to Eucharistic unity, which is to be a witness of the full union in faith and in prayer of those who partake."

This "proclamation of orthodoxy" is in complete harmony with the constant teaching of the Catholic Church: "Precisely because the Church’s unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord's sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established. Any such concelebration would not be a valid means, and might well prove instead to be an obstacle, to the attainment of full communion, by weakening the sense of how far we remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities with regard to one or another truth of the faith. The path towards full unity can only be undertaken in truth...'” (John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 43-44).

The UGCC's position has been less clear. Cardinal Husar, head of the UGCC, has oscillated between various positions. He has stated in an interview that “between the Orthodox and ourselves there are no differences in faith” (see original and RS's post) and, at the XIth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, 2-23 October 2005, he lead inquires into why there can be no liturgical concelebration with the Orthodox (see RS's post). Recently, however, he made a "proclamation of orthodoxy," stating: “At the same time, it is a pity that we share the rite and structure with our Orthodox brothers, but cannot celebrate the Divine Liturgy together. This indicates that the unity of the Church is not based on the community of traditions, but on the community of faith and ecclesiastical communion” (see RS's post).

This lack of clarity in the UGCC's position may have caused a certain "ecumenical insensitivity" towards the canonical practices of her "sister church" of the Kyivan Patriarchate. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to follow the reactions of both churches involved in this "ecumenical moment."

----
Read also RS's article, "More Ideological Moralization," on the presence of a relativistic ideology in the UGCC.

Returning to an Empty See

2009-08-28T04:18:00.023+13:00

As reported: "From 25-30 September 2009, London's Ukrainian Cathedral of the Holy Family in Exile will host a meeting of the Permanent Synod of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, led by Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, Major-Archbishop of Kyiv, and assisted by leading hierarchs from the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church from Ukraine and across the world, including Bishop David Motiuk, Eparch of Edmonton, Canada, and Bishop Paul Chomnycky, Eparch of Stamford, Connecticut. Also present will be Bishop Hlib Lonchyna, who on Sunday 27th September will be officially installed as Apostolic Administrator of the Ukrainian Exarchate for Great Britain."

The Permanent Synod forms the standing Patriarchal Council for Cardinal Husar. This meeting is especially important as it is preparing for the Synod of the whole hierarchy of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, which is due to take place in Kyiv in the autumn and looks set to be the largest gathering of the Ukrainian hierarchy since the 16th century" (slightly edited, see original).

Hopefully, this meeting of the Permanent Synod will be an important step towards the resolution of the over three-and-a-half-year sede vacante of the Apostolic Exarchate for the Ukrainian faithful of the byzantine rite in Great Britain. For Bp. Paul Chomnycky, OSBM, this meeting will be a kind of "homecoming," since he was the last to serve as exarch in this Apostolic Exarchate. He was transferred to the Eparchy of Stamford on 3 January 2006.

Bp. Chomnycky's reign was a relatively happy one, considering the at-times-stormy history of the UGCC in the UK. In the short four years that he served in England, there was a perceptible "calming of the waters." Maybe Bp. Chomnycky's presence at the Permanent Synod in London will help ensure that the flock he once tended could soon enjoy the guidance of a more "permanent" shepherd.

Lumpy Porridge, Наша Каша

2009-08-18T07:09:00.024+13:00

Cardinal Lubomyr Husar is busy assessing the damage after nation-wide coverage on the Ukrainian channel « 1+1 »’s evening news programme (see TCH.ua video and commentary) on 13 August 2009, which gave the so-called “Pidhirtsi bishops” a long segment of air-time to explain their motives for organising an on-going “picketing” of the L’viv State (Oblast) Administration. Their two-main motives are: firstly, the State Committee for Nationalities and Religious Affairs' refusal of their request to register themselves as the “True-believing (pravovirnij) Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church” (see article); and, secondly, the forced removal by state officials of a twenty-three-year-old candidate from a women’s monastery — loyal to the Pidhirtsi movement — in Bruchovychi.

There is a saying in Ukrainian: “If you cook the porridge (kasha), you have to eat it." The "Pidhirtsi porridge" started on the stove of UGCC. Clearly its origins were in the dysfunctional state of the Basilian Order (cf. Basilian Bishop Dionysius Lachovicz’s involvement below and RS's article Rome Sweet Home). The problem worsened, however, due to Redemptorist Bishop Koltun's early support of this divisive group, especially his assigning Robert Oberhauser (now one of the so-called Pidhirtsi bishops), after his release from the Basilian Order for disciplinary problems, to serve in his eparchy as an assistant pastor in the Pidhirtsi parish! Ironically, it was Bishop Koltun, who excommunicated the so-called Pidhirtsi bishops, since they had domicile in his eparchy.

Obviously, there are various fractions both within and outside of Ukraine — especially in this pre-presidential-election period — that would have a vested interest in keeping the UGCC's pot of porridge hot (i.e., who is "fueling" the Pidhirtsi movement?!) But is the raison d'être of this particular UGCC problem external? Maybe every maturing particular church from time-to-time has to stomach its own lumpy porridge - nasha kasha?!

=========

The following is re-printed with the author's permission (see original):

The genesis of these four schismatic bishops has taken years. It is a story that has plagued the Basilian Order and the UGCC for over a decade. Nevertheless, the one who .... [put the porridge in the UGCC pot] is the Basilian Bishop, Dionysius Lachovicz, OSBM, the previous General Superior of the Basilian Order and now curial bishop of the UGCC. During his term as General Superior, he was infatuated with this messianic group and convinced of their savific role in the reform of the Basilian Order. Lachovicz, even against the advice of his curial consulters, made decisions in favour of this group to the harm of the Basilian Order and to the Church not only in Ukraine, but also in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. In the autumn of 1997, Lachovicz was warned by the Basilian Provincial Superior in Poland, Volodymyr Juszczak, the present Bishop of Wrotoslaw-Gdansk, and by the entire Basilian Provincial Curia in Slovakia that this “potential sect” would in the long run gravely damage both the Order and Church if given a special mission within the Order. Despite these warnings, however, Lachovicz, on 21 October 1997 issued a decree giving this divisive group the canonical status of a “community ad experimentum” under his own personal authority as General. The novices of this group, who didn’t make it through the Basilian novitiate in Poland, Lachovicz assigned their formation to the group’s leader, Eliáš Dohnal. Lachovicz was forced to revoke the canonical status of this group on 11 May 1998, after a canonical visitation confirmed serious problems within this new community. Lachovicz issued a second decree on 9 December 1998, restating the annulation of this community ad experimentum, after this group, on their own initiative and against the will of the Bishop of Presov, Ivan Hirka, petitioned the Congregation of the Oriental Churches for permission to set up a monastery sui iuris in Slovakia.

One would think by this point Lachovicz might have realised that this group had sectarian tendencies and are a threat to the Basilian Order's stability and reputation. Nevertheless, at the request of the Greek Catholic Apostolic Exarch in Prague, Ivan Ljavinec, for a renewed Basilian presence in the Czech Republic (since the Second World War), on 2 November 1999, Lachovicz signed a contract with the Apostolic Exarch, Ljavinec, and with Prague's Archbishop, Miloslav Cardinal Vlk, assigning these controversial Basilian monks to be the members of this newly founded Basilian community. Moreover, Lachovicz even elevated the canonical status of this new group within the Basilian Order to a Delegature.

It didn't take long however, for this group to wage war against the Apostolic Exarch, Ljavinec, who, on 5 May 2003, took away jurisdiction from Metoděj Špiřík (Pastor) and Markian Hitiuk (assistant pastor). In the meantime, on 24 April 2003, Ladislav Hučko was named the new Exarch of the Greek Catholic Church in the Czech Republic. On the day of Hučko’s consecration, 31 May 2003, this Basilian group organised a protest against bishop-elect Hučko and blockaded the Greek Catholic Cathedral, forcing the episcopal consecration to take place in a nearby Roman Catholic parish. On 26 June 2003, Hučko annulled the registration of the Basilian Delegature in the Czech Republic. It should be noted that this Basilian group, also in 2003, opened a monastery in Nitra, Slovakia, without the permission of the Basilian General Curia and the local Slovakian Bishop.

Now that this Basilian had group burnt all of its bridges in Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, Lachovicz sent them to Ukraine "as a community" to the Basilian monastery in Pidhirtsi. It is here that this fringe group sunk its roots into the soil of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Lachovicz even wrote letters recommending some of these Basilian monks as retreat masters and formators to the Lviv Metropolia’s Commission on the Family. Lachovicz’s “community ad experimentum,” however, began to see its end in the Basilian Order at the General Chapter in 2004, which didn’t re-elect him and which finally liquidated the Czech Delegature.

====

On 21 December 2005, Bishop Dionysius Lachovicz, OSBM, was named a Curial Bishop of the Major Archbishop of Kyiv and Halych. On 26 February 2006, in Prudentopolis (Brazil) in the Church of Saint Josaphat the Martyr, he was consecrated a bishop (Cardinal Husar was the main consecrator). On 7 January 2009, Bishop Dionisius, OSBM, was appointed as Apostolic Visitator for Ukrainian Greek-Catholics in Italy, Spain and Ireland.

====

In 2005, Petro Didula, a writer for The Patriarchate magazine (published by the Ukrainian Patriarchal World Federation and the Ukrainian Patriarchal Society in the USA), wrote an article legitimising the presence of the "Pidhirtsi movement" within the Basilian Order and the UGCC. Before its publication, he was advised by the superiors of the Basilian Order, who were trying to disband the members of the already liquidated Czech Delegature, that any preceived support of the "Pidhirtsi movement" would be determental to the UGCC. It is true that the The Patriarchate magazine, subsequently, changed its position as regards the "Pidhirtsi movement," but one cannot underestimate the damage done by such early support of the press within the UGCC (to read Didula's article).

A Copy of a Copy

2009-08-06T15:52:00.014+13:00

On 5 August 2009, the Most-Blessed Volodymyr, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine, presented to Patriarch Kirill I of Moscow and All Russia, — during his pastoral visit to Ukraine — the newly-created Order of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, commemorating the 450 anniversary of the translation of the Pochaiv Icon to Volyn, Ukraine, in 1559 by Bulgarian metropolitan – Neophyte (see article). Patriarch Kirill also received a copy of the Pochaiv Icon. Ironically, the original icon of Holy Virgin was translated from Ukraine, when the Basilians were forcibly evicted from Pochaiv by the Russian Tsar, Nicholas I, in 1831 for their alleged support of the Polish uprising (1830 to 1831) (see below).

N.B. Holy icon of the Theotokos of Pochaiv was set in a golden diadem presented by Clement XIV, Pope from 1769 to 1774.

Another Ukrainian Redemptorist for the UK?

2009-06-28T09:01:00.007+13:00

In 1937, Blessed Bishop Mykolaj Charnetsky, C.Ss.R., celebrated a Pontifical Divine Liturgy in front of the partly completed Roman Catholic cathedral in Liverpool (Merseyside). There is wonderful video coverage of this historic event at the British Pathe website.

Although, Blessed Bp. Charnetsky, C.Ss.R., only visited England, two Ukrainian-Redemptorist Bishops have served in the UK: Bp. Michael Hrynchyshyn, C.Ss.R., (apostolic administrator 1987 to 1989) and Bp. Michael Kuchmiak, C.Ss.R., (apostolic exarch 1989 to 2002).

Rumor has it that Bp. Hlib Lonchyna's role — as the new apostolic administrator of the "UA sede vacante in the UK" — is to perform a little counterpoint "intermezzo," intertwining the melodies of "clean up" and "fund-raising" (property sales?) destined, of course, for the Patriarchal Sobor in Kyiv. After this short "intermezzo," there is a good chance — now that the Kyiv Archeparchy has a new auxiliary bishop, the Studite-monk, Joseph Milyan — that Bishop Bohdan Dziurakh, C.Ss.R (also an auxiliary bishop of the Kyiv Archeparchy) may become the next exarch of the Apostolic Exarchate for Ukrainian Catholics, renewing the Ukrainian-Redemptorist presence in the United Kingdom (and perhaps combined with the Apostolic Exarch of France, Benelux and Switzerland?!).

Big Ben's Time Is Up

2009-06-09T09:13:00.004+13:00

Rev. Benjamin Lysykanych, who served as apostolic administrator of the Apostolic Exarchate for the Ukrainian faithful of the byzantine rite in the United Kingdom, was replaced on 2 June 2009 by Bishop Hlib Lonchyna (see previous post). It is interesting to note that the Apostolic Exarchate for Ukrainian Catholics in the United Kingdom remains a sede vacante! Bishop Hlib is not the Exarch, but rather the apostolic administrator as was Fr. Benjamin. It does raise the question as to why replace one apostolic administrator for another, continuing the over-three-year sede vacante in the Apostolic Exarchate for Ukrainian Catholics in the United Kingdom. Nonetheless, for some reason Big Ben's time was up?!

Bishop Hlib Will Reign in the United Kingdom's "sede vacante"

2009-06-03T09:01:00.012+13:00

This past February, when Bishop Hlib Lonchyna was replaced as Apostolic Visitator for Ukrainian Greek-Catholics in Italy, Spain and Ireland, Ruskij Sion suggested that he was a possible candidate to fill the three-year vacancy in the Apostolic Exarchate for Ukrainian Catholics in the United Kingdom. Well, our hint has come true. On 2 June 2009, Pope Benedict XVI nominated Bishop Hlib to be "Apostolic Administrator" of the Apostolic Exarchate for the Ukrainian faithful of the byzantine rite in the United Kingdom which remains a sede vacante!

Bishop Hlib was born on 23 February 1954 in Steubenville, Ohio. He obtained an education in Detroit in the primary and secondary schools of Immaculate Conception Parish, which were run by the Basilian Fathers and Sisters.

He obtained his theological education in Rome at the Urbaniana University. He defended a doctorate in liturgy at the Pontifical Oriental Institute.

He became a monk in the Monastery of Saint Theodore Studite in Grottaferrata (Italy), in which took his vows on 19 December 1976. He was ordained to the priesthood by Josyf Cardinal Slipyj on 3 July 1977. For a few years he ministered at the Parish of Saint Nicholas in Passaic, New Jersey.

In 1994, he moved with the monastic community to Ukraine. He was a chaplain at Holy Spirit Seminary in Lviv. He taught liturgy and biblical studies in this educational institution, the Lviv Theological Academy and the Institute of Higher Religious Culture. He also worked as an attaché at the Apostolic Nunciature in Kyiv.

On 11 January 2002, he was nominated a bishop of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church with the titular see of Bareta. His episcopal consecration was in Saint George's Cathedral on 27 February 2002. He was appointed auxiliary bishop of the Patriarchal Curia of the Major Archbishopric and Head of the Curia of Kyiv and Halych Metropolitanate.

On 1 March 2002, His Beatitude Lubomyr named Bishop Hlib a Senator of the Ukrainian Catholic University. From 25 June 2002 to 2 June 2007, Bishop Hlib was the Head of the Senate.

From 22 March 2002 to 8 June 2004, he was the Head of the Patriarchal Liturgical Commission of the UGCC.

On 14 January 2003, by a decree of His Holiness John Paul II he was named Apostolic Visitator for Ukrainian Greek-Catholics in Italy. From 25 March 2003 to 9 May 2006, he was the Apokrisarius-procurator of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church at the Roman See.

On 1 July 2003, by a decree of His Beatitude Lubomyr he was appointed postulator of the cause of beatification and canonization of Servant of God Andrey Sheptytsky.

On 4 March 2004, His Holiness John Paul II nominated Bishop Hlib Apostolic Visitator for Ukrainian Greek-Catholics in Spain and Ireland.

On 16 June 2006, His Beatitude Lubomyr Husar appointed Bishop Hlib as Head of the Religious Administration of the Kyiv and Halych Metropolitanate of the UGCC. On 28 September 2006, he became head of the Department of Church Commissions and Responsible for Monastic Matters within the Patriarchal Curia of the UGCC.

In the past, Bishop Hlib has fostered close ecumenical relations with prominent Anglican theologians (see below) and has been an ardent supporter of the "patriarchal movement" as conceived by Josyf Cardinal Slipyj.

What's the Score? Auxiliaries 3, United Kingdom 0

2009-04-17T20:01:00.008+13:00

Since January 2009, when Ruskij Sion touched upon the three-year episcopal vacancy in the Apostolic Exarchate for Ukrainian Catholics in the United Kingdom, three auxilliary bishops have been appointed within the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church (UGCC). The first auxilliary bishop nominated, on 14 January 2009, was Sviatoslav Shevchuk to the Eparchy of Santa Maria del Patrocinio in Buenos Aires, Argentina (click here). Then, on 17 March 2009, the Basilian Bishop, Vasyl Medvit, OSBM, the Exarch-emeritus of the Kyiv and Vyshhorod Exarchate, humbly accepted to be an auxiliary bishop in the Donetsk and Kharkiv Exarchate (click here). Finally, on 16 April 2009, the Studite monk, Josyf Milan, was nominated an auxiliary bishop to the Kyiv and Vyshhorod Exarchate (click here). Despite these recent auxiliary-episcopal appointments within the UGCC, the Apostolic Exarchate for Ukrainian Catholics in the United Kingdom cannot seem to end its three-year episcopal vacancy. Why? Can the UGCC Synod not find a worthy candidate? Or has the Congregation for the Eastern Catholic Churches been delaying the process? Or, maybe, candidates have refused the nomination for some serious reason? What is blocking the nomination process?

Seeing Ukraine Through Orange-Coloured Lenses

2009-04-17T11:38:00.007+13:00

Ukraine is preparing for Presidential Elections to be held 25 October 2009. The Unian News Agency published an interview with Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, the Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, concerning various political topics, beginning with the Party of Regions’ recent manifestation on Kyiv’s Majdan Square, where Ukraine’s Orange Revolution took place in 2004. Card. Husar was quick to note the difference in character between the Orange Revolution and the Party of Regions’ recent manifestation: the former, he characterized as a ‘mass social demonstration’ in search of truth and justice and, the latter, as a mere political phenomenon (tainted by accusations in the media of paying the manifestation's participants). Furthermore, Card. Husar blamed the politicization of the Orange Revolution as the cause of its demise.

However, throughout the remainder of the interview, Card. Husar engaged in some serious politicization of his own. When asked about President Yushchenko, Card. Husar said that he respected Yushchenko’s ‘Ukrainianism’; nevertheless, he regarded the Ukrainian President’s “political demeanor” to be “very ineffective,” adding that he "barely presents himself as a politician.” Card. Husar topped off his remarks on the current administration by stating that the President’s Secretariat only “uses the President and does whatever they want with him.”

When asked about Yulia Tymoshenko, Card. Husar described her as a “talented politician” and regrets not — as of yet — having talked with her one-on-one.

The interviewer posed no question at all to Card. Husar about Victor Yanykovych, the leader of the influential Party of Regions and current leader of the opposition.

From this interview it is quite obvious that Card. Husar desires to strongly distance himself from President Yushchenko, who is failing in the polls and has no real chance of becoming re-elected. By flattering Yulia Tymoshenko, Card. Husar holds open a line of communication in the event that she becomes Ukraine’s first female President. As regards the Party of Regions, who also have a good chance of putting forth an electable presidential candidate, Card. Husar chooses silence, refraining from painting them with any colour.

Finally, Card. Husar also stated that “to call a politician ‘orange’ is to attribute to him great virtues,” adding “I can even imagine an ‘orange’ communist, that is a person who serves his nation.” Hence, if communists can be ‘orange’, one can imagine that even freemasons or facists can also be ‘orange’ so long as they serve their nation. Moreover, if someone from the Party of Regions does become President of Ukraine, he or she might even be seen as ‘orange.’ But then again, wasn’t the politicization of the Orange Revolution the cause of its demise?

The Fight Against Corruption — An Untold Story from Ukraine

2009-04-01T21:42:00.009+13:00

During his recent visit to Africa, Benedict XVI said Africans needed “a firm determination to change hearts and finally put a stop, once and for all, to corruption.” In an interesting parallel, the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index for 2006 granted Ukraine a 2.8 rating [10=highly clean, 0.0=highly corrupt], a ranking equal to African countries such as Mali and Mozambique. The Freedom House — Nations in Transit 2007 Report claims that Ukraine has stagnated at a corruption rating of 5.75 [1=highly clean, 7=highly corrupt] (cf. The Atlantic Council, Corruption, Democracy, and Investment in Ukraine, October 2007).

On 21 September 2006, The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace issued a document entitled The Fight Against Corruption (FAC). Corruption is a phenomenon present in all places and in every age. The present global economic crisis underscores this fact. Moreover, its awareness has grown at the international level due to two important historical factors: “the fall of the ideological blocs after 1989 and the globalization of information.… The opening up of the borders as a result of the process of globalization had made it possible for corruption to expand with greater facility in respect to the past, but also offers greater opportunity to fight it, by means of more resolute and coordinated international cooperation” (FAC, n. 2).

Consequently, the Universal Church calls all local churches to “cooperate in a valuable manner… in the fight against corruption” (FAC, n. 11). Furthermore, the local church is called, first and foremost, to fight against any form of corruption that afflicts her own body. In Ukraine, where corruption is high in almost every sector of society (economic, judicial, executive, legislative, mass media and private), so too the local churches have not remained immune from the plague of corruption.

What — until now — remained “an untold story” is the fight against corruption within the Ukrainian Province of the Basilian Order of St. Josaphat by the Protohegumen Emeritus (Provincial Superior), Fr. Gregory Hrynkiw. Born in Canada, Fr. Hrynkiw entered the Basilian Order of St. Josaphat in Mundare, Alberta, in 1989. While studying in Kyiv, he had witnessed first-hand Ukraine’s Declaration of Independence on 24 August 1991. From 1997 to 1998, he served as rector of the Basilian Institute of Philosophical and Theological Studies in Zolochiv. However, it was during his term as Protohegumen of the Most-Holy Saviour Province of the Basilian Order in Ukraine — from February 2004 to July 2007 — that he was forced to fight on the front lines against corruption within his own Order. Since no good deed goes unpunished, he received two death threats: 24 December 2006 and 13 January 2007. Consequently, at the request of his superiors, he came to Rome at the end of January 2007 to report on the situation. He presented a detailed report to the secretary of Congregation for the Oriental Churches. The Congregation decided that a Basilian Provincial Chapter needed be held in July 2007, six months earlier than originally scheduled, due to the circumstances around the threats to Fr. Hrynkiw’s life, an injustice that impeded him in the discharge of his office. Unfortunately, the Basilian Order has yet to properly investigate the cause of those threats. It is clear that the need for “a firm determination to change hearts and finally put a stop, once and for all, to corruption,” as Benedict XVI spoke of on his recent visit to Africa, seems wanting also in Ukraine.

Fr. Hrynkiw is now completing his doctorate in dogmatic theology in Rome, while simultaneously teaching in Ukraine. In a recent interview given in Kyiv for the journal Kolehija on the theme “Ukraine Between East and West: The Religious Dimension” (n.1 Winter 2008), he made this observation: “Ukraine has the both a natural and supernatural vocation to be a mediator between East and West. However, to have a calling is one thing and to respond to that vocation is another. The response to one’s vocation requires a certain level of moral integrity. Corruption is at present the major challenge facing Ukrainian society at all levels, including the Church. How Ukraine deals with this moral problem today will determine how well it will continue to respond to its vocation in the future.”

---------------
Développement:
see Orbis Catholicus

Basilian — Auxiliary Bishop of the Donetsk and Kharkiv Exarchate

2009-03-19T06:16:00.009+12:00

On 17 March 2009, Pope Benedict XVI blessed the decision of the Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) to appoint the Basilian Vasyl Medvit, OSBM, auxiliary bishop of the Donetsk and Kharkiv Exarchate.

Bishop Vasyl, OSBM, was consecrated bishop on 12 July 1994. From 1994 to 1997, he served as an auxiliary bishop of the Lviv Archeparchy. From 1997 to 2005, the UGCC Synod of Bishops appointed him Exarch of the Kyiv and Vyshhorod Exarchate. During his time in Kyiv, Bishop Vasyl, OSBM, supervised the construction of the UGCC’s Kyivan Sobor. In an interview with Klara Gudzyk of the Ukrainian newpaper “The Day” (11.11.2003), he stated that the $10 million fund raised at that time would be sufficient for the “total cost of the project” and that he was “certain that the cathedral will be completed in 2004” (read interview here).

Regarding his appointment to the Donetsk and Kharkiv Exarchate, Bishop Vasyl, OSBM, stated: “I always wanted to carry out my ministry as a bishop in eastern Ukraine. Therefore, when I could finally return with God’s help to full-time ministry after my treatment, I asked our synod to appoint me to exactly that part of Ukraine.”

Bishop Vasyl, OSBM, convalesced, up until recently, in the Basilian Monastery in Warsaw, where he once reigned as protoihumen of the Basilian Order of St. Josaphat in Poland (1989-1994). The Basilian Monastery in Warsaw holds the true icon of the Holy Virgin of Pochaiv, which was saved, when the Basilians were forcibly evicted from Pochaiv by the Russian Tsar, Nicholas I, in 1831 for their alleged support of the Polish uprising (1830-1831). May the Holy Virgin of Pochaiv continue to bless Bishop Vasyl, OSBM, with health of body and sobriety of soul!

An Oriental for the Congregation of the Oriental Catholic Churches?

2009-03-05T03:07:00.006+12:00

On 28 February 2009, Pope Benedict XVI nominated Archbishop Antonio Maria Vegliò, Secretary of the Congregation of the Oriental Churches (COC), as President of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People (here). A certain pattern has developed over the years, when the Prefect of the COC is of an Oriental Church, the Secretary is usually a Latin, and vise versa. Currently, the COC has a Latin-Rite Prefect, Cardinal Leonardo Sandri (appointed 9 June 2007), hence, there is a certain possibility that the new COC secretary could hail from an Oriental Church. It may well be that the new secretary of the Congregation of the Oriental Churches could come from the largest Oriental Catholic Church, i.e., the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church. RS will keep you posted!

Funeral Rites for Fr. Adrian Ckuj in Australia

2009-02-26T09:21:00.003+12:00

The Funeral Rites for the repose of the soul of Fr. Adrian in Australia will be held at Sts. Peter and Paul Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral (35 Canning St, North Melbourne, Vic. 3051). The Funeral Parastas will be on Wednesday, 4 March 2009, at 7.00 PM and the Funeral Divine Liturgy on Thursday, 5 March 2009, at 1.00 PM, followed by burial at Fawkner Cemetery (Ukrainian section A).

Father Adrian Ckuj — May His Memory be Eternal!

2009-02-23T00:24:00.013+12:00

Father Adrian Ckuj, Chancellor of the Ukrainian Apostolic Visitator in Italy and assistant pastor at the Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus in Rome, who was in a chemically induced coma after suffering for weeks from pulmonary bronchitis, died at around 18.30, on 21 February 2009, at just 39 years of age. A Requiem Divine Liturgy will be held in Rome and his body will be transported back to Melbourne for burial.

Fr. Adrian was born in Melbourne, 11 February 1970. From 1988 to 1991, studied microbiology and immunology at the University of Melbourne. In 1992, he entered the Ukrainian College of Saint Josaphat in Rome for priestly studies. On 13 December 1997, he was ordained to the Holy Priesthood at the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul in the Eparchy of Melbourne. He completed his licentiate in Dogmatic Theology at the Gregorian University in 2001 and a licentiate in Canon Law at the Papal University of the Holy Cross in 2004. In September 2004, he was appointed chancellor of the Apostolic Visitator for Ukrainian Greek-Catholics in Italy. In February 2005, he was elected secretary of the Santa Sofia Brotherhood in Rome and, from 2006 to 2008, he served as its president.

Fr. Adrian had one of the most wonderful jobs for World Youth Day held in Australia last year. He accompanied the relics of Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati halfway around the world on their first journey outside of Italy. Fr Ckuj commented that, although the journey from Turin was long, it was a “particularly prayerful” one for him alongside the body of such a young saint so widely venerated by Catholics.

R.S. wishes to express its heartfelt condolences to his parents and two brothers (one a parish priest in Sydney, Australia), the clergy of the Melbourne Eparchy of Sts Peter and Paul (UGCC) and to all his friends. We offer our prayers to Christ, our God, Who has power over the living and dead, and through the prayers of His Immaculate Mother, that the ever-to-be-remembered servant of God, Fr. Adrian, be granted eternal rest in a place enlightened by the Divine countenance.

May his memory be eternal!

-----

Développement:
Solemn Requiem Mass (extraordinary form) at the FSSP Church of Ss. Trinita dei Pellegrini for the late Fr. Adrian Ckuj was celebrated on Monday, February 23, 2009 at 19.00.

Thanks to all who attended. Photos can be viewed here.
----

At the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Sobor of Santa Sofia in Rome (via Boccea), for the repose of the soul of Fr. Adrian will be celebrated a Parastas on Wednesday (25.2.2009) at 19.00 and a Divine Liturgy on Thursday (26.2.2009) at 15.00.

Reunited in the United Kingdom?

2009-02-10T10:17:00.005+12:00

Now that Bishop Hlib Lonchyna was replaced as Apostolic Visitator for Ukrainian Greek-Catholics in Italy, Spain and Ireland, he has become a possible candidate to fill the three-year vacancy in the Apostolic Exarchate for Ukrainian Catholics in the United Kingdom. Bishop Hlib has fostered close ecumenical relations with prominent Anglican theologians (see below). Moreover, Bishop Hlib has always been an ardent supporter of the "patriarchal movement" as conceived by Josyf Cardinal Slipyj.

Just Visiting

2009-01-20T19:34:00.005+12:00

On 7 January 2009, the Basilian Bishop, Dionisius Lachovicz, OSBM, as was strongly rumoured (see below Rome Sweet Home), was indeed appointed to replace Bishop Hlib Lonchyna as Apostolic Visitator for Ukrainian Greek-Catholics in Italy, Spain and Ireland. He now joins, in Rome, his Basilian brother, Bishop Ireneo Bilyk, OSBM, who, on 22 March 2007, was appointed a Canon of St. Mary Major’s Papal Basilica. It is the first time in the history of the UGCC that more Basilian bishops would have residency in Rome than in Ukraine!

Bishop Dionysius Lachovicz, OSBM, was born on 2 July 1946, in Pombas, province of Itaiopolis, state of Santa Catarina, Eparchy of Saint John Chrysostom, in Curitiba (Brazil). On 30 March 1970, he took perpetual vows in the Basilian Order of St. Josaphat and, 8 December 1972, he was ordained a priest. From 1996 to 2004, he was Protoarchimandrite of the Basilian Order of St Josaphat. On 21 December 2005, he was named a Curial Bishop of the Major Archbishop of Kyiv and Halych. On 26 February 2006, in Prudentopolis in the Church of Saint Josaphat the Martyr he was ordained a bishop.

The Basilian Bishop, as Apostolic Visitator, was entrusted his office by the Roman Pontiff and not by the UGCC Synod of Bishops. His principal function is to make stronger and more effective the bonds of unity which exist between the Apostolic See and the Ukrainian Greek-Catholics that live and work in Italy, Spain and Ireland. It pertains to his office to send information to the Apostolic See concerning the conditions of the faithful and clergy of the UGCC and everything that touches the life of that particular church within the territory entrusted to him. He is to act as a liaison of UGCC with the local Latin bishops of Italy, Spain and Ireland, by respecting the jurisdiction of the local bishops and collaborating with them to ensure the sacramental life and rights of the UGCC faithful and clergy entrusted to his care.

Hopefully, this new appointment will solve some of the difficulties caused by the periods of absenteeism of the previous Apostolic Visitator, who was divided between his duties as Visitator and his other assignments in Ukraine as a member of the Curia of the Major Archbishop and head of the commission for monastic life in the UGCC. It should be noted that the mandate of an Apostolic Visitator is fulfilled, when he has been notified of recall by the Roman Pontiff or when the Roman Pontiff accepts his resignation.

With this appointment, Bishop Dionysius, OSBM, ceases to be a Curial Bishop and member of Kyiv-Halych Major-archiepiscopal Synod, although he remains a member of the UGCC Patriarchal Synod of Bishops (see article).

Don't Cry For Me Ukraina?!

2009-01-16T07:59:00.031+12:00

On 14 January 2009, Fr. Sviatoslav Shevchuk, rector of the L'viv major seminary, was nominated as auxiliary of the Eparchy of Santa Maria del Patrocinio in Buenos Aires, Argentina, for the Ukrainian Greek Catholics (160,000 faithful, 17 priests, 1 permanent deacon, 93 religious).

The bishop-elect was born in Stryj, Ukraine, in 1970 and ordained a priest in 1994. He intitiated his priestly studies with the Salesians in Buenos Aires for a short period (1991-1992) and completed them in Ukraine. In 1999, he defended his doctorate at the Angelicum in Rome. His academic abilities were immediately evident, which partly explains his meteoric ascent within the Holy Spirit Seminary from prefect of students (1999-2000) to vice rector (2000-2007), then on to rector (2007).

Ruskyj Sion is gladdened by the news of the nomination of such a worthy candidate to the episcopacy in the UGCC. However, in this year dedicated to vocations to the priesthood (cf. UGCC decree 31 December 2008), many are left questioning why such a competent and freshly prepared rector would be taken from the most important vocation of educating and forming candidates to the holy priesthood. If it is hard to find a good bishop in the UGCC (see previous post), it is even harder to find a good rector! There is no doubt as to Bishop-elect Sviatoslav's qualities as an educator and moral theologian. In 2001, he was made vice-dean of the faculty of theology at the Ukrainian Catholic University. Surely, if the UGCC wanted elevate Svaitoslav to the episcopacy as an auxiliary in preparation for future service (remember he is only 38), then why did it not choose a diocese in Ukraine, where his theological talents could still have been employed in the rebuilding a young and vibrant church? With Ukraine's deficit of qualified and capable professors of theology, one wonders how this decision harmonizes with the "politics" of the newly formed UGCC Commision for Personnel!

Vacancy and Reform in the "Annales Ecclesiae Ucrainae"

2009-01-15T21:08:00.007+12:00

Annales Ecclesiae Ucrainae has posted some recent material on the Reform of the Basilian Order of St. Josaphat and on the three-year episcopal vacancy in the Apostolic Exarchate for Ukrainian Catholics in the United Kingdom. As a note of interest linking these two articles, the current apostolic administrator has fostered a Basilian presence to take care of the pastoral needs of the Holy Family in Exile Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral in London.

Patriarchal Sobor?

2009-01-08T07:37:00.007+12:00

There is no question about the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church’s (UGCC’s) need to have a Sobor (a principle church) for its Major Archbishop in Kyiv. However, some questions do arise, to which answers cannot be found on the Sobor’s official website: How much are the UGCC’s yearly lease payments for the land upon which the Sobor is being built? Is the property lease secure enough to weather the constant changes in the Ukraine’s political climate within every level of government (urban, regional and national), taking also into account the country’s high level of corruption? Why has a financial statement never been released indicating how much money has been raised and employed in the Sobor’s construction, since the blessing of the cornerstone in the late autumn of 2002? Was there ever an investigation into allegations that funds destined for the Patriarchal Sobor were used in the building of the Basilian Parish in Kyiv? Is there a cost projection as to how much funding is still required to finish the Sobor and Patriarchal Curial buildings? Is there a cost budget for the future yearly maintenance of the Sobor and the Patriarchal Curia? What is the ratio of monies raised in Ukraine compared to that of the diaspora? Does the UGCC expect to maintain that ratio of funding for the future yearly maintenance of the entire complex? Finally, why are monks administering the pastoral needs of the Sobor? Are there are no qualified or trustworthy diocesan clergy?

Dropping of the title of “Patriarch of the West”

2008-12-15T02:04:00.008+12:00

It is interesting to note a distant link between what occurred “ecclesiologically” during the Union of Brest (1596) and Pope Benedict XVI’s dropping of the title of “Patriarch of the West” in the 2006 edition of the Annuario Pontificio. The reactions of the Eastern Orthodox were quite strong to this unexpected move by the reigning Pontiff. Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev (Bishop of Vienna and Austria [see below footnote 1], the representative of the Russian Orthodox Church to the European Institutions) stated: “It seems that the omission of the title “Patriarch of the West” is meant to confirm the claim to universal church jurisdiction that is reflected in the pope’s other titles, and if the Orthodox reaction to the gesture will not be positive, it should not be a surprise” (“Pope’s Title “Patriarch of the West” Removed”).

In the light of Vatican II’s ecclesiology, the various particular churches (including the patriarchal churches) arose “by divine providence” as institutions created by ecclesiastical law and not by the express will of Christ: “By divine Providence it has come about that various churches, established in various places by the apostles and their successors, have in the course of time coalesced into several groups, organically united, which, preserving the unity of faith and the unique divine constitution of the universal Church, enjoy their own discipline, their own liturgical usage, and their own theological and spiritual heritage” (Lumen gentium, n. 23).

Bishop Dimitri (Dimitrios) Salachas notes that Lumen gentium, n. 23 “cites in a footnote canons 6 and 7 of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea (325) as the fundamental canons of institution of the ancient partriarchal churches; an institution by ecclesiastical law” (Istituzioni di diritto canonico delle Chiese cattoliche orientale (Bologna: EDB, 1993), 58). Moreover, Gérard Philips, a theologian from Louvain who worked on the "Schema of the Theological Prepatory Commission" for Lumen gentium, commented: “[Lumen gentium, n. 23] doesn’t attribute their [the ancient partriarchal churches] foundation to an express will of Christ, but to the disposition of divine Providence” (La Chiesa e il suo mistero: storia, testo e commento della Lumen Gentium (Milano: Jaca Book, 1989), 275).

This interpretation accords with the present CCEO's (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium) understanding that the “power of goverance” in the Church is only two-fold: the supreme power of the Pope, as Pastor of the universal Church, and that of the diocesan bishop, as successor of the Apostles. Hence, patriarchal power of goverance emanates from the supreme power of the Pope (cf. CCEO can. 56) and not from the diocesan bishop’s power of governance: “The power of goverance established by Jesus Christ is only two-fold: that of the supreme authority and that of the diocesan (eparchial) bishop, equal in the East and West. Any other power of goverance, consequently, should pertain either to the one or to the other. There is absolutely no room in Catholic teaching for a self-standing ‘intermediate power’” (Ivan Žužek, “The Authority and Jurisdiction in Oriental Catholic Tradition,” Understanding the Eastern Code, 475).

In summary, by a disposition of divine providence, the patriarchal churches emanate from the supreme power of the Pope. Christ’s Church, on this side of heaven, cannot exist without bishops or without the Petrine ministry, but it can exist without patriarchs, if it would happen to be a future disposition of divine providence. Benedict XVI’s dropping of the title of “Patriarch of the West” underscores this reality.

In the light of Vatican II and the CCEO, the Union of Brest even today would remain a legitimate canonical possibility, i.e., it still would remain in the power of governance of the bishops of a particular Church and in the supreme power of governance of the Pope to make such a desired union. (For a similiar, yet very diverse ecclesial situation, see Card. William Levada’s response to the South Australian Anglican Primate Archbishop John Hepworth’s letter on “the prospects of a corporate unity”). Moreover, at the time of the Union of Brest, the Patriarch of Constantinople was not in communion with Rome and, even though Constantinople was the Mother Church of the Kyivan particular church, it was not considered by either Rome or Kyiv to be a significant “intermediate power.” The Ruthenian hierarchy expected to be excommunicated by Constantinople and obviously didn’t fear this consequence in their desire to profess their re-union with the Successor of Peter.

It still remains to be seen what effects Pope Benedict XVI’s dropping of the title of “Patriarch of the West” will have on the reappraisal of patriarchal ministry and ecumenism.

For a unique perspective on the patriarchate for the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church from one of the advisors to the Congregation of the Oriental Churches, read Fr. Robert Taft’s interview with the the National Catholic Reporter (4 February 2004). Ruskyj Sion does not endorse Fr. Taft’s ranting on most issues, but it is interesting to see how this “tough-love guru (gee, u r ukrainian™)” has advised the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church’s hierarchy on this important matter.

--------
1. The Russian Orthodox Bishop of Vienna and Austria, Hilarion Alfeyev is a most vocal advocate of the principle of “one bishop, one city” ("La notion du territoire canonique dans la tradition orthodoxe"). Fr. Robert Taft, in an interview with the National Catholic Reporter (4 February 2004), firmly critiqued this ideology: “…the Orthodox plant metropolitans wherever they want. Let’s take the example of Austria. Vienna has been a Catholic see since the first millennium, yet the Russian Orthodox have a metropolitan, not just “in” Vienna but “of” Vienna … that’s his title. Yet there probably aren’t 5,000 Russian Orthodox in the whole of Austria[...] Is Moscow their canonical territory? Yes, but guess whose canonical territory Vienna is. They come up with the argument, we believe in the principle of “one bishop, one city.” Want to guess how many Orthodox bishops there are in New York? I mean, for God’s sake. The problem is, nobody talks to them like that because nobody knows what I know. Catholics hear this stuff and say, “Oh, gee, aren’t we awful.” Give me a break” (cf. National Catholic Reporter (4 February 2004)).

Russia and the Universal Church

2008-12-11T23:49:00.003+12:00

"The perfect circle of the universal Church needs one single center, not for her perfection, but for her simple existence. The terrestrial Church, called to embrace the multitude of nations, must—in order to remain a social reality—oppose to all national divisions a determined universal power. The terrestrial Church, which must enter into the current of history and be subjected—in her circumstances and exterior relations—to unceasing changes and variations, needs, in order to safeguard her identity, an essentially conservative, and yet active, power, unalterable in its essentials and supple in its forms. Finally, the terrestrial Church, destined to act and stand firm against all the powers of evil in the midst of an infirm humanity, must be provided with an absolutely firm and unbreakable structure, stronger than the gates of hell. Now, as we know, on one hand, Christ had foreseen this necessity of an ecclesiastical monarchy by conferring on one alone the supreme and indivisible power of his Church; and we know, on the other hand, that of all the ecclesiastical powers of the Christian world there is but one sole power that perpetually and invariably maintains its central and universal character and which, at the same time, by an ancient and general tradition, is especially joined to him to whom Christ said: 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.' The word of Christ cannot remain without effect in Christian history; the principal phenomenon of this history must have a sufficient cause in the word of God. Let anyone find, therefore, for the word of Christ to Peter, a corresponding effect other than the chair of Peter, or anyone discover for this chair a sufficient cause other than the promise made to Peter" (Vladimir Soloviev, La Russie et l'Eglise universelle (Paris, 1922), p. 131).

Blessed Leonid Feodorov: His Life Was an Unceasing Prayer for the Conversion of Russia to the Fullness of Unity

2008-12-11T12:46:00.003+12:00

“My whole life has been based on two principles: the love of the Church to which I am united, and the love of my country, which I adore. If I do not care whether I am sentenced to ten years imprisonment or to be shot, it is not because I am a fanatic... Since I joined the Catholic Church my sole object has been to reconcile my country to that Church which I believe to be the One True Church” — Blessed Leonid Feodorov, Exarch of the Russian Catholic Church

Blessed Leonid Feodorov was born to a Russian Orthodox family on 4 November 1879 in St Petersburg, Russia. In 1902, he left his Orthodox seminary and traveled to Rome, where he converted to Catholicism. He assisted at the coronation of Pope Pius X on 9 August 1903. He studied in Anagni, Rome and Friburg. On 25 March 1911, he was ordained to the priesthood in the Eastern-rite in Bosnia. Also in Bosnia in 1913, he became a monk of the Studite monastery. Afterwards, he returned to St Petersburg and was subsequently arrested and sent to Siberia. Released in March 1917 during an amnesty for political and religious prisoners, he returned to Saint Petersburg and was appointed to be the head of the Russian Catholic Church of the Eastern-rite, with the title of Exarch. His second arrest came in 1923; he was sent to Solovky Islands on the White Sea and to Vladka for ten years. He died a martyr for the faith on 7 March 1935. In 1937, with the help of the Metropolitan Andrij Sheptytsky, the process for his beatification was undertaken. On 27 June 2001, Leonid Feodorov was beatified by Pope John Paul II in Ukraine.

O Merciful Lord Jesus, Our Savior, hear the prayers and petitions of Your unworthy sinful servants who humbly call upon You and make us all to be one in Your one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Flood our souls with Your unquenchable light. Put an end to religious disagreements, and grant that we Your disciples and Your beloved children may all worship You with a single heart and voice. Fulfill quickly, O grace-giving Lord, your promise that there shall be one flock and one Divine Shepherd of Your Church; and may we be made worthy to glorify Your Holy Name now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

— prayer for unity by Blessed Leonid

Development of Dogma? From ideology towards theology

2008-12-05T23:58:00.007+12:00

On 28 November 2008, a joint meeting of the members of the Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church and the Conference of Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church of Ukraine was held in Lviv-Briukhovychi. The meeting was attended by all the Catholic bishops of both rites in Ukraine. The aim of the gathering was to show the unity of the faith despite the differences in rite.

The Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, Lubomyr Cardinal Husar, remarked that “[t]his meeting, which is held after a certain interval, is to help establish further cooperation in areas, where we can act jointly. We also would like to exchange the experience of Church life of our communities” (see press release).

This renewed agape between the two Catholic rites in Ukraine is one of the first fruits born from the “ad limina” visit of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic hierarchy to tomb of St. Peter and to his Successor, Benedict XVI, who, on 1 February 2008, urged the Greek-Catholic bishops to seek a greater collaboration with their Latin-rite brother bishops: “It cannot be denied that such cooperation between the two rites will give rise to greater harmony in the hearts of those who serve the one Church. Moreover, I am sure that with this inner disposition, it will be easier to ease possible misunderstandings, in the knowledge that both rites belong to the one Catholic Community and both have full and equal citizenship in the one Ukrainian People. In this light, it would seem useful, venerable Brothers, for you to meet regularly, for example, once a year, with the Latin bishops” (cf. Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Greek-Catholic Bishops of Ukraine on Their “ad limina” Visit).

Benedict XVI underscored in his address that both Catholic rites share an equal dignity within the Ukrainian nation, since both serve the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. This point Cardinal Husar also stressed in his remarks that “despite the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is of the Latin tradition and UGCC is of the Byzantine one, we all can participate in the services together, as we all are members of the Catholic Church.”

Cardinal Husar added to his comments an interesting elaboration: “At the same time, it is a pity that we share the rite and structure with our Orthodox brothers, but cannot celebrate the Divine Liturgy together. This indicates that the unity of the Church is not based on the community of traditions, but on the community of faith and ecclesiastical communion. This actually shows what Catholicism is. It is not a confessional but ecclesiological, theological notion regarding the faith…” This declaration is indeed a “development of doctrine” for Cardinal Husar, who in the past disseminated the ideological claim that “between the Orthodox and ourselves there are no differences in faith.”

Ruskyj Sion (RS) is well aware that numerous laity and clergy of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic community read this blog. Thus, at this time, RS would like to thank its grassroots lay core and its many contributors from various points on the globe for their prophetic witness to the truth that church unity, as willed by Christ, can only be with His Vicar, the Successor of Peter. “Ut unum sint” and may the Triune God alone be praised for this “development of dogma!”

Rome Sweet Home

2008-12-04T09:48:00.009+12:00

It is strongly rumoured that Bishop Dionysius Lachovicz, OSBM, (see below, More Ideological Moralization) will soon be appointed to replace Bishop Hlib Lonchyna as Apostolic Visitator for Ukrainian Greek-Catholics in Italy, Spain and Ireland. Hence, he would join in Rome his Basilian brother, Bishop Ireneo Bilyk, OSBM, who, on 22 March 2007, was appointed a Canon of St. Mary Major’s Papal Basilica.

Both of these Basilian bishops have interesting ties to the four Basilian priest-monks in Pihirtsi (Ukraine), who incurred the canonical penalty of major excommunication (10 Sept. 2008) for violating can. 1462 of the CCEO; i.e., they were illegitimately consecrated bishops. Bishop Lachovicz was very influential in the genesis of the Pihirtsti Basilian community (cf. Per Christum), while Bishop Bilyk felt compelled, in an official communiqué, to publically deny any involment with, what he calls, the “Pidhirtsi events.” Nevertheless, Bilyk's vague declaration still leaves doubt about his possible role in their episcopal consecration.

If it should come to pass that Bishop Lachovicz is indeed “exiled” to Rome (as was his Basilian confrère, Bishop Bilyk), it would be the first time in the history of the UGCC that more Basilian bishops would have residency in Rome than in Ukraine (the only Basilian bishop left in Ukraine would be Bishop Sofron Mudry, OSBM, Emeritus of Ivano-Frankivsk).

More Ideological Moralization

2008-11-19T01:09:00.014+12:00

During the XIIth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, 5-26 October 2008, on “The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church,” the Basilian Bishop, the Most Rev. Dionysius Lachovicz, OSBM, made an intervention (10 October 2008) that added his voice to the cacophony of the prevalent ideology plaguing the UGCC’s hierarchy (see below), which stems from a certain ecclesiological relativism (see below). It is an ideology based on what Benedict XVI calls a “praxeological model”(1), where “the relationship between truth and action (“praxis”) is… reversed;” where “[a]ction is becoming the actual hermeneutic of unity”(2). It is ultimately the reversal of the primacy of logos (truth) over ethos (right action). Romano Guardini, in his brilliant work Vom Geist der Liturgie (1918), clearly explicated the primacy of logos over ethos, demonstrating the impossibility of an ethic without truth as its fundament. As Benedict XVI summed up: if “there are no standards of judgement [logos]; we end up in an ideological moralizing with a tendency to enthusiasm or fanaticism”(3).

In quoting the Second Vatican Council’s affirmation that “the Word and Eucharist form ‘one single act of worship’ (Sacrosanctum Concilium 56)”, Lachovicz identifies his own stumbling block: “it becomes difficult to understand, from the point of view of Ecumenism, why the Eucharist cannot be celebrated with the Orthodox (for example), while we can celebrate the sacrament of the Word of God with them and we also have Baptism in common. If this unity between the Word, Baptism and Eucharist exists, why deny Eucharistic communion?”

Lachovicz fails to grasp that only the full communion in the profession of faith in the Word is the fundament for the fullness of unity in the Eucharist. Although the Divine Liturgy (the “public act of divine worship,” i.e., the lēitos ‘public’ + -ergos ‘working’) is “one single act of worship,” not all can fully partake or concelebrate in both “parts” of that “one single act”(4). The lex orandi, lex credendi of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy teaches us this truth. The catechumens (those preparing for baptism, who have not yet received the fullness of faith), although, they can be present and partake in what the Byzantine Church calls the “Liturgy of the Catechumens”, i.e., the “Liturgy of the Word”; nevertheless, they must leave the assembly for the “Liturgy of the Faithful/ Eucharist.” Hence, the deacon intones the ektenia (litany) before the Great Entrance, crying out: “All catechumens, depart. Depart, catechumens. All that are catechumens, depart. Let no catechumen remain. Let us, the faithful, again and again in peace, pray unto the Lord.”

Similarly, Catholics, who share a unity in the sacraments and apostolic succession with the Orthodox, can in a spirit of ecumenism “concelebrate” together with the Orthodox a “Liturgy of the Word.” However, because the Orthodox do not enjoy the fullness of communion in the profession of faith, there can be no concelebration of the “Liturgy of the Faithful/Eucharist.” A recent papal liturgy (as another instance of the Church's lex orandi, lex credendi) expressed this very truth. On Sunday, 29 June 2008, in the Vatican basilica for the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, the Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I delivered a homily at the Papal Mass, i.e., he actively “concelebrated” in the “Liturgy of the Word;” nevertheless, at that same Mass, he didn’t actively “concelebrate” in the “Liturgy of the Eucharist.” John Paul II clearly stated the theological primacy of the fullness of faith (truth) over the action of Eucharistic concelebration: “Precisely because the Church’s unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord’s sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established. Any such concelebration would not be a valid means, and might well prove instead to be an obstacle, to the attainment of full communion, by weakening the sense of how far we remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities with regard to one or another truth of the faith. The path towards full unity can only be undertaken in truth” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, nn. 43-44).

Rather than drawing from the theological richness of the lex orandi, lex credendi of the Church’s liturgical tradition, the Brazilian-born Lachovicz flavours his moralising ideology with a certain ecclesiological relativism of a “Boffian” blend. Benedict XVI cites Leonard Boff as an author, who “propounded the thesis that just as the one Church of Christ subsists in the Roman Catholic Church, so it does also in other Christian Churches[…] The thesis of which Boff was at the time the representative might be characterized as ecclesiological relativism”(5). The essence of such an ecclesiological relativism is in its denial of Vatican II’s “subsistit” formula: “This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church [subsistit in Ecclesia catholica], which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him” (Lumen gentium, n. 8). Thus, the ecclesiological relativism of a “Boffian” blend wrongly asserts that the Church of Christ “fully subsists” in all Christian Churches. Moreover, it is precisely this erroneous “Boffian” assertion, which underlies Lachovicz’s query: “If this unity between the Word, Baptism and Eucharist exists, why deny Eucharistic communion?” Here, the Basilian Bishop wrongly assumes that there is an existing “fullness of unity” in the Word (logos-truth) with the Orthodox, which would allow for a “fullness of unity” in the Eucharist.

The inability to grasp this point is usually the cause for the reversal of the primacy of truth over action. Unable to see that the real obstacle to unity lies in the lack of a “full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith”, the “Boffian” solution is forced action. Thus, the moralizing tone of Lachovicz’s rhetorical questions: “How can we read and comment on the Word of God with other Confessions, for example, the text “May they all be one” (Jn 17: 20), when we cannot incarnate this Word? The Word becomes sterile. When you are not able or you do not want to incarnate this Word, then why read it?” However, as Benedict XVI affirms: “that is why ecumenism will always be seeking after unity in belief [logos], not just a striving for unity of action”(6).

All forms of ecclesiological relativism, which deny any differences in the profession of faith/truth, divest Christians of the very pain of their being truly separated, which is what impells them to seek unity in faith and worship. Moreover, the healing of this wound of separation with the restoration of unity in faith, we cannot do ourselves. As in liturgy, so too in ecumenism, it is God’s work; it is a “participation in the trinitarian dialogue of Father, Son and Holy Spirit; only in this way is it not our “doing,” but opus Dei – God’s action in us and with us”(7). Furthermore, as in liturgy, so too in ecumenism, there remains an eschatological dimension. Benedict XVI, commenting on Soloviev’s vision of eschatological unity, wisely notes: “Ecumenism is really nothing other than living at present in an eschatological light, in the light of Christ who is coming again. It thus also signifies that we recognize the provisional nature of our activity, which we ourselves cannot finish; that we do not want to do for ourselves what only Christ, when he comes again, can bring about. On our way toward him, we are on our way to unity”(8).

Notes
(1) J. RATZINGER, “On the Ecumenical Situation,” in Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005): 266.
(2) Ibid., 260.
(3) Ibid., 264.
(4) “Duae partes e quibus Missa quodammodo constat, liturgia nempe verbi et eucharistica, tam arcte inter se coniunguntur, ut unum actum cultus efficiant” – (SC 56).
(5) J. RATZINGER, “The Ecclesiology of the Constitution Lumen Gentium,” in Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005): 144-145.
(6) J. RATZINGER, “On the Ecumenical Situation,” 265.
(7) J. RATZINGER, A New Song for the Lord: Faith in Christ and Liturgy (New York: A Crossroad Herder Book, 1996): 118.
(8) J. RATZINGER, “On the Ecumenical Situation,” 269.

Separating the Grain from the Chaff: A Theology Weighted by a ‘Cloud of Witnesses’ vs. a Weightless Ideology Clouded by Ecclesiological Relativism

2008-09-30T01:54:00.003+13:00

Within the mission of theology, there is a relation between the prophetic and the episcopal tradition. Bishops have always had the mission to discern between true and false prophets, for in every age to the Church is given prophetic figures. However, “the ministerial office of the Church is exposed to the risk of disregarding prophetic voices on account of their being uncomfortable” (Ratzinger, The Nature and Mission of Theology, 120).

In an interview (26 January 2004) conducted by Antoine Arjakovsky, Cardinal Lubomyr Husar (the Major Archbishop and head of the UGCC) makes a naïvely anachronistic judgment regarding the Union of Brest (“If I had lived 400 years ago, I unconditionally wouldn’t have made the choice that was made then” - “Якщо б я жив 400 років тому, я безумовно не зробив би вибір, який був тоді зроблений”) and an erroneous statement that “between the Orthodox and ourselves there are no differences in faith” - “Ми вважаємо, що у нас нема з православними різниці у вірі” (see http://www.risu.org.ua/ukr/religion.and.society/interview/article;705/).

Unfortunately, there is indeed a divergence in faith between Eastern Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox; and, because of this lack of unity in the profession of faith, especially over papal primacy, there can be no eucharistic concelebration between them (cf. below St. Peter's Successor: Principle of Eucharistic Unity and Guarantor of Diversity). These affirmations (cited above) of Cardinal Husar discord with the prophetic witness of the UGCC’s martyrs, especially the sacrifice of the Bishop-Martyr St. Josaphat, who gave his life for the Union of Brest, and, more recently, all those martyred, including some of the hierarchy, as a result of the L’viv pseudo-synod’s liquidation of the UGCC in 1946. All of them could have avoided martyrdom simply by becoming Orthodox, enjoying all the valid sacraments and apostolic succession. But, why didn’t they become Orthodox, if there was no difference in faith and no risk of apostasy (i.e., the renunciation of one’s faith)? Furthermore, if it wasn’t a matter of faith, what could possibly have been the reason for their martyrdom?

Ultimately, if there is no essential difference in faith between Eastern Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, all ecumenism is superfluous: “It is not a matter of adding together all the riches scattered throughout the various Christian Communities in order to arrive at a Church which God has in mind for the future. In accordance with the great Tradition, attested to by the Fathers of the East and of the West, the Catholic Church believes that in the Pentecost Event God has already manifested the Church in her eschatological reality, which he had prepared “from the time of Abel, the just one”. This reality is something already given. Consequently we are even now in the last times. The elements of this already-given Church exist, found in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other Communities, where certain features of the Christian mystery have at times been more effectively emphasized. Ecumenism is directed precisely to making the partial communion existing between Christians grow towards full communion in truth and charity” (my italics) (John Paul II, Ut unum sint, 14).

It must be remembered that the episcopal tradition of both the universal Church and each particular church sui iuris includes not only the present hierarchy but also the episcopal collegiality of all its past members. A bishop’s mandate is to preserve his local church within the unity of the universal Church. The manner in which he carries out this mandate cannot be isolated from the entire ordo which he entered into by his episcopal consecration (co-consecration of bishops is the ancient liturgical expression of this collegiality). As Ratzinger notes: “A bishop is not a bishop by himself, but only in Catholic communion with those who were bishops before him, are bishops with him, and will be bishops after him” (Kirche, Ökumene und Politik (Einsiedeln, 1987), 21).

In a public letter to Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, Major Archbishop of Kyiv-Halych, Pope Benedict XVI confirms his brother Bishop (and the entire UGCC) in the faith by extolling the UGCC’s “cloud of witnesses” and emphasizing the future mission of the UGCC in full communion with the Successor of Peter: “Unfortunately, in those sad days of March 1946, a group of clerics gathered in a Pseudo-Synod who unduly claimed to represent the Church seriously wounded ecclesial unity. Violence was intensified against those who remained faithful to unity with the Bishop of Rome, giving rise to further sufferings and forcing the Church to return underground.

"But, although beset by unspeakable trials and sufferings, Divine Providence did not permit the disappearance of a community which for centuries was considered a legitimate and living part of the identity of the Ukrainian People. In this way, the Greek-Catholic Church continued to give its own witness to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ.

"The memory of what took place 60 years ago must become an incentive for the community entrusted to the pastoral care of the reorganized Greek-Catholic hierarchy in Ukraine to deepen its profound and earnest bond with the Successor of Peter. From that Church, purified by persecutions, streams of living water flow not only for Ukrainian Catholics but for the entire Catholic Church throughout the world.

"In the patient journey of faith lived day after day in communion with the Successors of the Apostles, whose visible unity is guaranteed by the Successor of Peter, the Ukrainian Catholic Community was able to keep sacred Tradition integrally alive. To keep this precious patrimony of the “Paradosis” alive in all its richness, it is important to ensure the presence of the two great streams of the one Tradition - the Latin stream and the Eastern one - both with the variety of historical manifestations that Ukraine has duly expressed.

"The mission entrusted to the Greek-Catholic Church in full communion with Peter is two-fold: its duty, on the one hand, is to maintain the visibility of the Eastern tradition in the Catholic Church; on the other, to facilitate the meeting of the traditions, witnessing not only to their compatibility but also to their profound unity in diversity” (my italics) (dated 22. 02. 2006, Vatican City).

Martyriological Structure of the UGCC's Particular Theological Patrimony: The "Sensus Fidelium" and Papal Primacy

2008-09-28T22:55:00.014+13:00

In the words of St. Paul: "The spiritual man judges all things" (I Cor., 2:15).

The Apostle to the Gentiles is speaking of the wisdom of the saints, whose lives are “a rule and standard of all human acts.” In fact, the wisdom of the saints is for theology a locus theologicus. It is a part of the sensus fidei or, as it is sometimes called, the sensus fidelium (the term used in the proclamation of the Marian dogmas), when taken together with the Church's Magisterium. This accord of spirit and heart between the sensus fidelium and Magisterium form what is called: “to perceive, to feel or to understand with the Church” — sentire cum Ecclesia.

Thus, the martyr saints of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church (UGCC) are a locus theologicus for its own particular theological patrimony. During the celebrations of the 400th anniversary of the Union of Brest, John Paul II stated:
"The jubilee celebrations should also be a time of reflection. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church must first of all ask itself what full communion with the Apostolic See meant for it in the past, and what it will mean for it in the future. In a spirit of humble thanksgiving, the Greek Catholic Church will give glory to God, for its heroic fidelity to the Successor of Peter and, under the action of the Holy Spirit, it will understand that today this same fidelity commits it to fostering the unity of all the Churches. This fidelity cost it sufferings and martyrdom in the past: this is a sacrifice offered to God in order to implore the hoped-for union" (my italics) (Apostolic Letter on the occasion of the 400th anniversary of the Union of Brest).

The fidelity to the full communion with the Successor of Peter, which, in the past, cost the UGCC both sufferings and martyrdom, is very same fidelity, which, in the future, will bring about the hope-for union of the separated churches not yet in full communion. The fullness of communion with the Successor of Peter is what the Ruthenian hierarchy, as a particular church, in the Union of Brest freely desired as a matter of faith (1) and it is what the martyrs of this particular church testified to with their lives.

In addition, John Paul II affirmed that: “The celebration of the Union of Brest should be lived and interpreted in the light of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. This is perhaps the most important aspect for understanding the significance of the anniversary.” Thus, the truth of the faith that fullness of communion is with the Successor of Peter and that this truth forms the foundation and driving force of a true ecumenism was most eloquently stated in Lumen gentium, n. 8: “This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church [subsistit in Ecclesia catholica], which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.”

In an essay, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as Prefect of the CDF, explicated the meaning of Lumen gentium, number 8: “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith found itself, in 1985, needing to declare its position in relation to this much-discussed text; this was occasioned by a book by Leonard Boff in which the author propounded the thesis that just as the one Church of Christ subsists in the Roman Catholic Church, so it does also in other Christian Churches…
“The thesis of which Boff was at the time the representative might be characterized as eccesiological relativism […]
“With the subsistit formula, Vatican II intended — in line with the Catholic tradition — to say something the exact opposite of “ecclesiological relativism” : there is a Church of Jesus Christ. He himself willed her existence, and ever since Pentecost the Holy Spirit is constantly creating her, despite all human failures, and preserves her in her substantial identity […]
“At this point it becomes necessary to trace the term subsistit somewhat more carefully. With this expression the Council changed Pius XII’s formulation, when he said in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi: The Catholic Church “is” (est) the one Mystical Body of Christ. The distinction between subsistit and est contains and conceals the entire difficulty of ecumenism. The term subsistit derives from classical philsosophy, as it was further developed in Scholoasticism. The Greek word corresponding to it is hypostasis, which plays a central role in Christology, for describing the unity between divine nature and human in the Person of Christ. Subsistere is a special variant of esse. It is “being” in the form of an independent agent. That is exactly what is concerned here. The Council is trying to tell us that the Church of Jesus Christ may be encountered in this world as a concrete agent in the Catholic Church. That can happen only once, and the view that subsistit should be multiplied fails to do justice to the particular point intended. With the term subsistit, the Council was trying to express the particular quality of the Catholic Church and the fact that this quality cannot be multiplied: the Church exists as an active agent within historical reality.
“The distinction between subsistit and est does, however, imply the drama of the schism of the Church: although the Church is only one, and does really exist, there is being that is derived from the being of the Church, an ecclesiasitcal entity, even outside the one Church. Because sin is a contradiction, this distinction between subsistit and est is, in the end, something that cannot be entirely explained logically. Reflected in the paradox of the distinction between the uniqueness and the concrete existence of the Church, on the one hand, and on the other, the continuing existence of a concrete ecclesiastical entity outside of the one active agent is the contradictory element of schism. Such schism is quite different from the relativistic dialectic described above, in which the divisions between Christians are divested of their pain and are not really schisms at all but merely a representation of the multitudinous variations upon a theme, in which all the variations are in some sense right, and all in some sense wrong. There is not in that case actually any inner requirement to seek unity, because even without it the Church is everywhere and nowhere. Christianity can then only exist at all in variations that are dialectically opposed to one another. Ecumenism then consists of everyone granting each other mutual recognition in some sense, because they are all merely fragments of what Christianity is. Ecumenism then consists in coming to terms with a relativistic dialectical process [...]” (J. RATZINGER, “The Ecclesiology of the Constitution Lumen Gentium,” in Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005): 144-146).

This revealed truth, the fullness of communion subsists in the Catholic Church, desired by the Ruthenian hierarchy and faithful in the Union of Brest as a matter of faith, testified to by her confessors and witnessed to by her martyrs, forms the fundament of the UGCC’s particular theological patrimony. Moreover, the very same fidelity to this particular article of faith continues to be the motivator and guarantor of a true ecumenical spirit. This testimony to the truth that fullness of communion is with the Successor of Peter is one of the UGCC’s greatest contributions to Ukraine’s collective “love of wisdom” (ljubomudrija). It is an essential part of its own particular “theology” that is at once universal and perennial. Furthermore, the blood of UGCC’s martyrs shed in testimony of this article of faith is a prophetic voice to all, especially to her own clergy and faithful, that the hoped-for unity or fullness of communion with the separated churches can only be with the Successor of Peter, “the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity both of the Bishops and of the multitude of the faithful” and the only “guarantor of legitimate diversity of rites, disciplines and ecclesiastical structures between East and West” (CDF, “Considerations on The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church” (October 31, 1998), n. 11).

————
(1) In a declaration of the Ruthenian Bishops dated December 2, 1594, their intention is clearly stated that as pastors of the flock entrusted to them by Christ, they have the duty in faith to renew the concord and union with the one Mother Church, the Catholic Church, as was taught by Christ: “Nos infra nominatae personae, qui huic scripto nostro subscripsimus, notum facimus, quo introspicientes diligenter vocationem et officium nostrum, quod est hujusmodi, ut nosmetipsos, et hominum Christianorum gregem ovium Christi nobis a Christo commissum, ad concordiam et unionem promoveremus, prout nos Salvator noster Christus Jesus edocuit, eamque doctrinam sanguine suo obsignavit, ac potissimum his infelicissimis temporibus nostris, quibus multae ac variae haereses inter homines grassantur, ob quas plurimi recedentes a vera et Orthodoxa fide Christina, gregem nostram deserunt, et ab Ecclesia Dei veroque in Trinitate illius cultu se ipsos separant, quod non alia de causa accidit, quam ob dissensionem nostram cum Dominis Romanis, cum quibus cum simus unius Dei homines, et tanquam unius Matris Sanctae Ecclesiae Catholicae filii, ab iis divisi sumus [...]” (Welekyj, DUB, n. 17, 33).

Cardinal Reginald Pole and the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church: The Martyriological Structure of Papal Primacy

2008-09-26T09:01:00.012+13:00

In his book, Church, Ecumenism and Politics, Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) describes the “martyriological structure” of papal primacy, using as a historical paradigm the dispute between, on one side, Cardinal Reginald Pole (1500-1558) and, on the other, Henry VIII (1491-1547), Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) and Bishop Richard Sampson (+ 1554; who apostasied and became the Anglican bishop of Chichester and subsequently of Coventry). Bishop Sampson’s thesis was that “the papal office as such contradicted Christian humility.”

For Cardinal Reginald Pole, on the other hand, “it is clear that denying the primatial principle in fact destroys the New Testament structure and restores the exclusivity of secular power […] In the actual case of England the denial of the papacy means transferring to the state the Church’s external order, the system of a state Church and, along with the secular domination over the Church, the disappearance of martyrdom. In turn this means that for Pole the martyrs are the unequivocal indication of where the church is to be found — and here we touch on the real reason, both psychological and theological, which turned Pole into a defender of the papacy. The martyrs, who set faith in the supranational unity of the universal Church and its tradition in contrast with the national Christianity of the realm, provide an indication of where the Christian needs to stand in this dispute” (my italics) (Church, Ecumenism and Politics (Middlegreen, UK: St Paul Publications, 1988): 37-38).

As similar historical paradigm for the "martyriological structure" of papal primacy can be found in the UGCC. The Ruthenian hierarchy freely sought out the Union of Brest, because neither the Patriarch of Constantinople "nor his predecessors since the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453 had exercised any direct authority over the Kievan Church" (S. SENYK, “The Background of the Union,” in Analecta OSBM, Section II, Volume XV (XXI) 1-4, 1996): 103). Moreover, the Patriarch of Constantinople was powerless to deal with the Kyivan church's concrete problems, as he himself was in need of aid and constantly in search of "generous alms to payoff the contributions the Turkish authorities imposed on the holders of the patriarchal thrones" (SENYK, "The Background of the Union," 103). Furthermore, the Kyivan Church was in a deporable state, and, in some senses, Patriarch Jeremiah II, during his visit to the Kyivan Church in 1588-9 (in search of alms) worsened the situation, by granting stauropegial status to the Brotherhood in Lviv, making it independent from the local bishop. As Senyk notes: "Ruthenian hierarchs, whatever their personal character and abilities, were too conscious of the authority with which they were invested at ordination to tolerate supervision from a portion of the flock they were to guide" (Senyk, The Background of the Union of Brest, 104). In short, “Jeremiah's stay in the Metropolitanate of Kyiv seems to have variously catalyzed the bishops' union initiative" (B. GUDZIAK, Crisis and Reform: The Kyivan Metropolitanate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Genesis of the Union of Brest, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998): 210).

Moreover, the Kyivan Church was not exempt from being caught up in the Counter-Reformation struggle with the Protestants for the soul of Europe. Hence: "In response to the disintegration and differentiation proliferating in Christendom for most of the sixteenth century the notion of “union” was becoming a new ideal in contemporary Europe. [...] Desperate, weak, and disoriented, and, ultimately, mindful of the biblical imperative of unity, the Ruthenian hierarchs began to pursue integration with one of the adversaries" (GUDZIAK, Crisis and Reform, 209). Rome, was seen as an adversary from Constantinople's point of view: “Under Ottoman rule the Patriarchs of Constantinople, entirely dependent on the Sultans, were supposed to avoid any contact with the Papacy, the main enemy of the Ottoman Empire, and to remain in absolute opposition to the Union of Florence or its possible revival" (O. HALECKI, From Florence to Brest, (Rome, Sacrum Poloniae Millenium, 1958): 213). However, it must be noted that: “after the Eastern division in 1054, the Ukrainian people, professing their faith ‘in one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,’ continued to lean toward the Apostolic See of Rome where the Successor of St. Peter resided. It must also be noted that the Kievan Church never formally broke away from Rome.
“[…] the idea of the Church unity was planted into the hearts of the Ukrainian people together with Christianity, and was nurtured and preserved in the bosom of the Ukrainian Church for many centuries in hope that the Constantinopolitan Church would be the first to take necessary steps toward the union. After the fall of Constantinople, this hope simply vanished, since the Patriarchs were oppressed under the Turkish yoke and were unable to do anything in order to return to the desired unity. Under these conditions the Ukrainian and Belorussian bishops came to the conclusion that it was their own responsibility to return to the unity of the Church, under the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome” (A. PEKAR, "The Union of Brest and Attempts to Destroy It," in Analecta OSBM, Section II, v. XIV (XX) 1-4, 1992): 157; cf. also art. 33 of the Articles of the Union of Brest).

Also, at the time of the Union of Brest, the Kyivan Church was under yet another threat from the newly established Moscow Patriarchate (1589), "under whose jurisdiction the Moscovite rulers intended to consolidate all the eparchies of the former Kievan Rus'. The Union of Brest was to contain the expansionist policy of the Third Rome and to guarantee the ecclesiastical autonomy to the Metropolitan Province of Kiev" (PEKAR, "The Union of Brest and Attempts to Destroy It," 168).

From this brief historical summary, we can "touch on the real reason, both psychological and theological," why the Kyivan church desired the Union of Brest. In their renewed profession of faith in papal primacy, they believed that the Successor of Peter was indeed the only gaurantor of their diversity as a church sui iuris, and that their renewed participation in the "supranational unity of the universal Church" was the only supernatural reality that could keep them from falling prey to both a "state-run Church" (Turkish-ruled Constantinople) and a "nationalised Christianity of the realm" (the Czarist-ruled Moscow Patriarchate) and, thus, from all secular domination of state-run power over their particular church. Hence, with the Union of Brest came the appearance of matyrdom!

The "martyriological structure" that comes with papal primacy can be traced throughout UGCC's subsequent history after the Union of Brest, including its relatively, in historical terms, recent mock liquidation at the 'L'viv Sobor', 8-10 March 1946, by the Soviet authorities, the Moscow patriarchate, and the so called 'Initiative Group of the Greek-Catholic Church for Reunion with the Orthodox Church' set up by the People's Commissariat of State Security (for a historical account of the abolition of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church and the 'L'viv Sobor', cf. B. BOCIURKIW, The Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church and the Soviet State ) (Toronto: Canadian Institute for Ukrainian Studies Press, 1996), 102-187). Once again, the UGCC's supernatural participation in the "supranational unity of the universal Church" with the Successor of Peter preserved her existence and adorned her with many new martyrs.

Fr. Robert Taft, SJ, speaking about both the pseudo-Sobor of 1946 in Lviv and the liquidation of the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church in 1948, states: "This history is important for several reasons. First, it shows the demonstrable falsity of the accusation that the Catholic Church has "reinvented" or "resurrected" a dead and gone "Uniatism," thereby stalling the Orthodox-Catholic ecumenical dialogue. A more nuanced view, one corresponding to the historical facts, leads one to recognize the following realities. Eastern Catholics were forced into the underground in the 1940's by one of the bitterest and most violent persecutions in Christian history. Although this was done by Stalinist regimes there is abundant and irrefutable evidence that it had the active support and/or collaboration of at least some Orthodox hierarchs and authoritative exponents. Each case must be taken by itself, and justice demands avoiding generalization, but there can be no doubt that ambiguous figures like Patriarch Justinian Marina in Romania, and Archbishop Makarij Oksijuk in Lviv and Transcarpathia, were active participants in these historic violations of human rights. And one of the chief Romanian Orthodox ideologues of modern times, the Orthodox priest and noted theologian Rev. Dumitru Staniloae (d. 5 Oct. 1993), gave wholehearted vocal support for this massive violation of human rights, insisting that the "reunion [of Greek Catholics with the Orthodox Church which took place in 1948] was entirely free and spontaneous. This is not only a patent lie; it is also a denial of the bitter suffering of martyrs" (“Anamnesis, Not Amnesia: The ‘Healing Memories’ and the Problem of ‘Uniatism'" the 21st Kelly Lecture (Toronto: University of St. Michael's College, 1.12.2000), jbburnett.com/resources/taft_uniatism-toronto2000.pdf (accessed 1.9.2008)).

The Latin Rite and the Oriental Code - can. 35

2008-03-21T06:52:00.005+12:00

On Monday, 24 September 2007, Pope Benedict XVI, in his address at Castel Gandolfo to the Latin-Rite Bishops of Ukraine on the occasion of their “ad limina” visit, stated the following:

“I am sure, dear and venerable Brothers, that motivated by this spirit it would be possible to intensify cordial collaboration between the Latin and Greek-Catholic Bishops for the good of the entire Christian People. Thus, you will be able to coordinate your pastoral plans and apostolic activities, always offering the witness of that ecclesial communion which is also an indispensable condition for the ecumenical dialogue with our Orthodox brethren and those of other Churches. May I be permitted in particular to draw your attention to the proposal of at least one annual meeting that would gather together the Latin-rite Bishops and those of the Greek-Catholic rite, to discuss together how to make your pastoral action increasingly more harmonious and effective. I am convinced that fraternal cooperation between Pastors will be an encouragement and incentive to all the faithful to grow in unity and apostolic enthusiasm, and will also foster fruitful ecumenical dialogue.”

Roman Catholic bishops, especially in Eastern Ukraine, could greatly improve church relations with Greek Catholics and the Orthodox by fulfilling their obligation to treat the Orthodox faithful, who convert to the Catholic Faith, according to the Oriental Code of Canon Law:

“Baptized non-Catholics [i.e. Orthodox] coming into full communion with the Catholic Church should retain and practice their own rite everywhere in the world and should observe it as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions” (CCEO Can. 35).

It is surprising how many converted Orthodox faithful, who attend the Roman rite in Ukraine, think that they are Roman-rite Catholics simply by their conversion, never having petitioned the Apostolic See for a change of rite. Moreover, it is not in any Roman Catholic bishop's competence to concede a change of rite. It is a privilege of the Apostolic See.

It would be interesting and revealing to survey those who attend the Roman rite in Ukraine to see how many really are Roman Catholics and not just think they are.

Radical Orthodoxy?

2008-03-10T06:12:00.013+12:00

"Let us be attentive! Holy Things..."

The Second Annual International Conference of the Institute of Ecumenical Studies (1 - 4 June 2006), held at the Ukrainian Catholic University (UCU) in Lviv, was entitled: Radical Orthodoxy: a Christian Answer to Postmodern Culture. Mgr. Hlib Lonchyna, Curial Bishop of the UGCC and Professor at UCU, opened the conference with an introduction, Returns to a Radical Orthodoxy, and welcomed the conference’s guest speaker and well-known representative of the Radical Orthodoxy movement, Professor John Milbank of the University of Notthingham (UK), who gave a conference entitled: Paul versus Biopolitics.

One might not find it suprising that an Anglican theologian such a John Milbank be invited to speak at a Catholic University even though some of his opinions, as considered by most orthodox Catholics, are not “radically” rooted in the “orthodox” Tradition of the Faith. I am referring specifically to Milbank’s interview on “The Anglican Communion’s Argument Over Homosexuality” in the online Religious and Ethics Newsweekly (October 17, 2003; no. 707; www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week707/com mentary.html), where he expressed the following: “While I am in favor of the sacramental recognition of gay relationships (though not of gay marriage, since I think the theological notion of marriage requires both sexual difference and openness to procreation) and believe that clergy and bishops can appropriately be in active gay relationships that are sacramentally recognized…”; “In so witnessing they [the Anglicans] will be giving a lead to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches which will shortly have to confront the gay issue for themselves. I believe that when they do, it will eventually become apparent that a Catholic theological view points to acceptance of homosexual practice by those created with such an orientation.
Since even many younger, quite conservative evangelicals are changing their minds on this issue, there is every reason to think that gradually resistance to gay practice will fade. Therefore, Catholic Christians should not feel afraid of taking a prophetic stand at this juncture for fear of schisms which are likely to prove only temporary, since they do not concern more perennial divergences of doctrine. Not to do so is likely further to compromise the church in the eyes of the world which, not at all without reason, believes that over this issue it is mired in fantastic and almost comical depths of hypocrisy.”

During the Divine Liturgy held at the conference, Milbank received the Eucharist from the hand of Mons. Hlib Lonchyna.

How Many Perished in the Famine and Why Does It Matter?

2008-02-07T01:39:00.000+12:00

Here is an interesting article by John-Paul Himka for your consideration:
www.brama.com/news/press/2008/02/080202himka_famine.html

A Greek-Catholic Bishop Returns to Lutsk

2008-01-17T21:36:00.002+12:00

Read this interesting article on how the new exarchate is a first step to the long-awaited restoration of the ancient Ukrainian Catholic bishopric of Lutsk.

Aquinas, a Light to the East?

2007-09-02T03:36:00.000+13:00

Maybe Taft’s definition of Eastern Catholic Theology (ECT) is too broad and, thus, allows a big Latin fish like Aquinas to fit into net of ECT's extention (cf. previous post: Eastern Catholic Theology - Is There Any Such Thing?). Nevertheless, a “practioner” of ECT, like the Eastern Catholic and a Confessor of the Faith — Josyf Cardinal Slipyj, who Taft names as “one of the greatest Eastern Catholic leaders of modern times,” sees Aquinas as a Light to the East.

It was under Pius XI’s pontificate that Slipyj was nominated Rector of the Seminary and Theological Academy in L'viv. At that time he founded the Ukrainian Theological Society and its periodical Bohoslovia.

Before we look at the program of theological renewal in L’viv under¬taken by Slipyj, let us briefly examine two monographs that he wrote at the beginning of his theological career. They not only symbolise his entire theological endeavour, but they are representative of the tension that has long existed in Ukrainian theological centres of thought — namely the in¬terrelationship between St. Thomas and the East: “The tension represented by that complex interrelation between Thomism and the East was an undercurrent throughout his years as a student, and it was to recur throughout his career as a theologian and churchman.… Even at the end of his life, his young semi¬narians used to refer to Josyf Slipyj affectionately as ‘a Thomist in a klobuk,’ a reference to the distinctive headgear of a Ukrainian clergyman that he would often wear” (PELIKAN, Confessor between East and West, 103-104).

In 1924 the young theologian Josyf Slipyj wrote a series of dissertations that were to be given at the Congress for Church Unity held in Velehrad (located in the present-day Czech Republic). One of those dissertations was: De valore S. Thomæ Aquinatis pro Unione eiusque influxu in theologiam orientalem [Bohoslovia 3 (1925)]. There he argued that within the explicit teaching of the Magisterium — to follow the doctrine, method and principles of St. Thomas — there is also an implicit desire (desiderium implicite) of the Church that the philosophical and theological work for Church unity be founded upon the teachings of the Angelic Doctor: “Ecclesia catholica maximas laudes Aquinati tribuit et Summus Pontifex nupperime stu¬diorum ducem honorifice eum declaravit edicens ad theologiam philosophiamve S. Thomæ redeundum easdemque in spiritu et sec. mentem Doctoris Angelici evolvendum esse. In qua exhortatione etiam desiderium implicite contineri puto, ut labor scientificus unionisticæ actionis super Aquinatis fundetur” (ibid., 1-2).

He also accounted for the fittingness that St. Thomas be studied in the East — namely because scholasticism was born in the East and evolved from Greek philosophy and Greek Patristic theology, and because it was under the influence of St. Thomas and the Scholastics that philosophy and theology in Ukraine were revived and Church unity was promoted, especially by Metropolitan Peter Mohyla ) and the Kyivan-Mohylian Academy (founded in 1615): “Puto me non multum a veritate aberesse cum affirmem, quo profundius theologi Orientales opera S. Thomæ cognoverint, eo firmius Unioni ecclesiarum adhæsisse” (ibid., 18).

Following the erection of the Theological Academy (1929), in a monograph entitled De S. Thoma Aquinate atque Theologia et Philosophia scholastica, Slipyj continued his effort to correct the subjective evaluation of scholasticism that crept into the Ukrainian centres of philosophy: “We still are plagued by an out-dated notion of the Middle Ages and especially of scholastism… Therefore, since the doctrine of Thomas found a strong echo in our theology, I endeavoured as much as is possible to make this known, especially the interrelation between western scholastism and Ukraine. At the same time, I wanted to speak about the necessity of a revision of the notion of scholastism in Ukraine,” (Opera Omnia Kyr Josephi (Slipyj - Kobernyckyj - Dyckovskyj) Archiepiscopi Maioris et Cardinalis (Romæ: Universitas Catholica Ucrainorum a S. Clemente Papa, 1969), vol. 2, 9-10).

This monograph is divided into twelve chapters:
In the first chapter, "The Jubilee of St. Thomas (600th Anniversary of His Canonisation) and the Restoration of Scholasticism," Slipyj invited the whole Ukrainian nation to duly honour and praise St. Thomas because it was under his influence that education and theology were reborn in Ukraine (especially in the XVII century), and it was upon his doctrine that the idea of Church unity found its theological support.

Slipyj urged Ukrainian historians of philosophy, who at that time were heavily influenced by Protestant and liberal thought, to review the reasons for their opposition towards scholasticism. He demonstrated how their arguments were based upon an inherited prejudice rather than upon historical evidence. They were uninformed about the accomplishments of the golden age of scholasticism in the XIIIth century, and they identified scholasticism as a whole with its period of decadence in the XVI-XVIIth centuries. Moreover, the Ukrainian contribution to scholastic thought was a most neglected area of their research. He concluded that the restoration of scholasticism in Ukraine would cause a renewal in both philosophy and theology.

In the following chapter, "The Concept of Scholastic Theology and its First Fruits," he defined scholasticism and showed that its origin is in the Greek Fathers and theologians (St. John of Damascus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen).

In chapters 3 through 10, Slipyj briefly summarised the history of scholasticism in the West and of the life and work of St. Thomas. In chapter 11, St. Thomas and Eastern Theology, he showed that in the East there have always been theologians who have accepted and defended the doctrine of St. Thomas. After the fall of Constantinople, the centre of theological studies in the East moved to the Kyivan-Mohylian Academy, where Ukrainians, Russians, Greeks, Romanians, Croats, Bulgarians and Serbs all studied the doctrine of St. Thomas, revering his doctrine's intrinsic authority.

Slipyj concluded this chapter in these powerful words: “It is indeed clear that those Eastern theologians, who more intensely studied Thomas — more firmly supported Church Unity… There is now no need to fear, that having fallen into the clutches of Aquinas's Summa, the East will lose its distinctive character in the development of theology. The Magnum opus of scholasticism contains within itself the quintessence of theological knowledge and, therefore, constitutes the indispensable foundation for further studies. It would be rash to ignore and not consider the Summas in contemporary eastern theology” [«De S. Thoma Aquinate atque theologia et philosophia scholastica,» Opera Omnia Kyr Josephi (Slipyj - Kobernyckyj - Dyckovskyj) Archiepiscopi Maioris et Cardinalis (Romæ: Universitas Catholica Ucrainorum a S. Clemente Papa, 1969), 91-92].

In the last chapter, "A Summary of St. Thomas's Creativity," he briefly outlined Aquinas's theory of knowledge, his natural theology and his political philosophy.

Slipyj’s early theological ideas found their authoritative support in Pius XI's Magisterium. In 1931, six years after his appointment as rec¬tor of the Greek-Catholic Major Seminary in L’viv, he began the UGCC's reform of higher education modeled upon Deus scientiarum Dominus: “Scholastic philosophy has in the East a well-founded tradition, which was prepared by the Greek Fathers, especially Damascenus… The development of theological studies must advance along the path which the Church Fathers have marked out. Obviously, it cannot limit itself to a historical repetition, rather it must adapt itself to modern tendencies and problems, using the accomplishments of western theology: the development of theories, a clarified terminology, the latest pedagogical studies and methods, which have elevated western theology to such a high standard” (SLIPYJ, Opera Omnia, vols. 3-4, 96) (my translation); and in the section on Curriculum studiorum et examina, we find the doctrine of St. Thomas explicitly mention in both the Studia Philosophia (ibid., 109) and Studia Theologia (ibid., 111).

Pius XI's Magisterium was obeyed to the letter. St. Thomas’s doctrine played a key role in the contemporary ecclesiastical context of the UGCC. This structure of theological education lasted in Ukraine until the UGCC was liquidated at the ‘L'viv Sobor’, 8-10 March 1946, by the Soviet authorities, the Moscow patriarchate, and the so called ‘Initiative Group of the Greek-Catholic Church for Reunion with the Orthodox Church’ set up by the People's Commissariat of State Security.

On 13 March 1969, N.B. just after Vatican II, at the Angelicum, as part of the celebrations for the feast of St. Thomas, Josyf Cardinal Slipyj gave a lecture on St. Thomas: Theology and Philosophy in the East [«San Tommaso e la scienza teologica e filosofica nell'Oriente,» Angelicum ), 3-15].

The theme of Slipyj's discourse was to examine what the Eastern theological tradition had to say about St. Thomas and western scholasticism, and what St. Thomas, on the other hand, had to say about the Eastern Tradition.

He noted that in the East many Greek and Russian theologians speak with indignation of scholasticism because having examined scholasticism only in its period of decadence, they fail to see in it the continuation of the teachings of Greek philosophy and of the Greek Church Fathers: “Infatti fondamentale per la scolastica è la filosofia aristotelica e la teologia dei Padri greci e di Sant'Agostino. È incredibile come San Tommaso, commentatore del greco Aristotele, versato nella patrologia greca, con la sua calma ed oggetività, con il suo carattere stabile ed inflessible, e con la sua santità — santissimus inter doctores et doctissimus inter sanctos, — non abbia potuto infrangere questo muro divisorio e penetrare nelle menti e nei cuori degli Orientali ed aprire gli occhi anche agli Occidentali. Veramente la scolastica si è svillupata dalla dottrina dei Padri greci, e San Tommaso — il più eccelente filosofo e teologo scolastico — ha preso come fondamento i Padri greci, ha esposto il loro pensiero e ha preparato così lo svillupo posteriore della teologia greca e della stessa missione delle Chiese” (ibid.)

Slipyj went on to demonstrate the influence of Greek thought in the works of the Scholastics, especially in those of St. Thomas and, in turn, the influence of St. Thomas's doctrine on the East. He emphasised the mediating role that St. Thomas's doctrine has played and continues to play in bringing both East and West together: “Concludendo si può affermare tranquillamente che le opere di S. Tommaso hanno contribuito molto all'avvicinamento delle due Chiese in Oriente ed Occidente. La sua argomentazione può essere presa come solido fondamento nelle discussione e polemiche, in tutte le questioni controverse fra le Chiese d'Occidente e d'Oriente, perché poggia su una salida base” (ibid.).

In the UGCC at that time, Slipyj was not alone in his heavy reliance on St. Thomas in his theological works. Both of the Servant of God Metropolitan Andrij Sheptyskyj's major theological works, The Wisdom of God (Metropolita Andreas Szeptyckyj, Opera: ascetico-moralia (Romæ: Universitas Catholica Ucrainorum a S. Clemente Papa,1979), 1-126) and On Christian Righteousness (ibid., 127-413) are replete with references to St. Thomas. In The Wisdom of God, he includes as an essential part of his theological method a consultation of St. Thomas's doctrine: “Therefore, under the guidance of St. Thomas, a great teacher in the theological school, which is now approved by the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, we will examine the virtues of Christian righteousness…” (ibid., 27).

The present rector of the Holy Spirit Seminary in L’viv, Fr. Sviatoslav Shevchuk, summed up the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Theology according to Slipij’s vision as: “the inheritance of Kyivan Christianity. Today many speak about the special characteristic of the Kyivan Church as a Church that feels the need of a dual communion: from one hand, with the Latin Church, and, from the other, with the Orthodox. Naturally, the theological tradition of this Church grew and ought to grow in a dual theological and intellectual communion that is essential to it. In the works of Josyf Slipij sounds a clear warning against ecclesial and theological separatism as regards the West. Such a separatism would lead to an ignorance of Western Theology and would lead to controversy and schism (“The Identity of Ukrainian Theological Studies in the Light of Patriarch Josyf’s Testament” Bohoslovia 66/), 137).

Could it be that, in the light of Josyf Card. Slipyj’s reflections on Eastern Catholic Theology, Aquinas indeed is a Light to the East, because his theology reflects the Lux ex Oriente? Maybe Taft’s definition of ECT is right and Aquinas does fall within its parameters!?

Eastern Catholic Theology – Is There Any Such Thing?

2007-09-01T22:12:00.000+13:00

Fr. Robert Francis Taft, S. J., in the initial part of his article, “Eastern Catholic Theology – Is There Any Such Thing? Reflections of a Practioner,” [Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, vol. ), 13-58] talks of “parameters”, where he makes the claim that Eastern Catholics have first stake in defining what Eastern Catholic Theology (ECT) is, since it is their patrimony. This is not an exclusive claim, he adds, for a definition can be attempted by anyone with competence, honesty and objectivity.

In defining “terms”, he states that it is easier to say what ECT is not: it is not Eastern Orthodox Theology, although it is not opposed to it; it is not Western Theology, although it is influenced by it; it is not a theology that can be attributed to any Eastern Catholic theologian whatsoever, while it is a theology that can be done by non-Eastern Catholics.

He gives a descriptive definition of ECT as “a style of Catholic theological thinking in which “Eastern” is not an ecclesial or ethnic attribute of those doing this theology, but an epithet specifying the nature and quality of the theology itself.” In others words, he excludes “Eastern” as a necessary quality of the theologian and places it as a necessary property or quality of a particular theology.

He then admits: “My only point is that Eastern Catholic theology does exist despite problems in defining its distinctiveness [i.e., the necessary quality], and like any other cultural reality, it deserves to be dealt with in its own right, and not as viewed through someone else’s tinted lenses.” This statement assumes that ECT is a “cultural reality” and must be view from within its own philosophical structures that determined its expression. Everyone looks at world through glasses, i.e., through a philosophy. What I think Taft is suggesting is that we must understand the context in which a certain Eastern Theology is expressed. I say certain, because there is a pluralism of theologies even in the East. Hence, Taft’s later statement that ECT, like Eastern Orthodox theology, forms an integrated whole as in contrast to the West, where such a integration is unthinkable “with its clash of competing methodologies and philosophies” is intellectually naïve. Obviously the spectrum of methodologies and philosophies in the West is vast; nevertheless, Eastern “theologies” have been informed by various systems of thought. Just think of the influence of German Idealism on Russian theology or the various cultures (since it is a “cultural reality) that inform the various ECTs.

Taft, towards the end of his hunt for the definition, states his final thesis: “I would describe it [ECT] as the theology of Catholic practitioners with a knowledge and love for the traditions of the Christian East, a Catholic theology that seeks to breathe with both lungs, nourishing a sometimes anaemic Catholic thought with oxygen from both sides of the East-West Christian divide.” In this final descriptive definition, he determines that the theologian, who need not be Eastern, must be Catholic and must have a knowledge and love of Eastern Christian Traditions, while seeking to incorporate the universality of the Church’s thought within his theology. Ironically, one theologian, who one would not immediately expect, fits this definition. He is a non-Eastern Catholic. Although he has a weak knowledge of Greek, nevertheless, he has a vast knowledge (with which he surpassed all of his predecessors and contempories in the West) and love of the Eastern Fathers. In fact, his theological method is based on pseudo-Dionysius and St. John Damascene. He was the first to introduce into the West the authority of Cyril of Alexandria in Christology and his Christology draws much more heavily from the East than the West, citing more often St. John Damascene, St. John Chrysostom, pseudo-Dionysius and others. In all the parts of his doctrine, he refers to the Fathers of the East, and more often than not, giving them priority of place. The name of this Eastern Catholic Theologian, according the Taft’s definition, is — St. Thomas Aquinas. [For an account of Aquinas’s vast knowledge and dependence on the Eastern Fathers in his theology, cf. GEENEN, G. “Saint Thomas et les Pères.” In Dictionaire de Théologie Catholique, ed. AMANN, É., Vol. V, 1, coll. 738-761.]

Vladimir Soloviev – “The Russian Newman”

2007-08-31T21:05:00.000+13:00

Two great religious thinkers of the 19th century were Vladimir Soloviev and John Henry Newman. Both of these brilliant Christians – one an Orthodox, the other an Anglican – came to the same conviction about the absolute necessity of the Petrine Office in the life of the Universal Church.

Though similar in many ways, they had very different characters. Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote of these two great men: “...[Soloviev] was a completely different person from Newman. Aware of already possessing the entire catholicity of the faith of the Creed and bringing with him the rich treasure of Eastern wisdom and speculative trinitarian sophiology, he had a triumphal way of showing his Orthodox brethren the plain necessity of a concrete Church center in Rome and of mercilessly unveiling the sins, delusions and cowardice of the Eastern Church. Yet he loved the Church of his origins no less than Newman did his own; both were noble hearts – but Newman spoke more softly...” (The Office of Peter And The Structure of the Church: Ignatius Press).

Soloviev begins the second part of his work, Russia and the Universal Church, with the Gospel passage on the vocation of Andrew, the First-Called, and his brother Simon-Peter: “Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who had heard what John said and had followed Jesus. He first found his brother Simon and said to him: We have found the Messiah (which means, the Anointed). And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus having looked upon him said: Thou art Simon, the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas (which means, Rock)” (John 1: 40-42).

The Greco-Russian Church… claims the special patronage of St. Andrew. The blessed apostle, inspired by goodwill towards his brother, brings him to the Lord and hears from the divine lips the first word of Simon’s future destiny as the Rock of the Church. There is no indication in the Gospels or in the Acts of the Apostles that St. Andrew ever felt any envy towards St. Peter or questioned his primacy. It is because we would justify the claim of Russia to be the Church of St. Andrew that we shall try to imitate his example and to conceive the same spirit of goodwill and religious harmony towards the great Church which is especially connected with St. Peter.

This spirit will preserve us from local or national egotism, the source of so much error, and will enable us to examine the dogma of the Rock of the Church in the light of the very essence of the revelation of the God-Man, and so to discern in that revelation the eternal truths which this dogma expresses.”

An interesting biblical and prayerful approach to ecumenism.

St. Peter's Successor: Principle of Eucharistic Unity and Guarantor of Diversity

2007-08-27T10:56:00.000+13:00

During the XIth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, 2-23 October 2005, at the Vatican, two Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Bishops put forth their pastoral perspectives on the desirability for concelebration of the Divine Liturgy with the Orthodox. (They don’t specify which Orthodox Church in particular or whether they intended all of the Orthodox confessions present in Ukraine. The latter possibility would only create further difficulties, since between the various Orthodox confessions there is no concelebration). Here are their proposals as given on the official Vatican website.

The first was from H.E. Most. Rev. Sofron Stefan Mudry, OSBM, Bishop Emeritus of Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine, 08.10.2005: “The question which I am putting forward stems from a practical need. In the Ukraine, the ordinary situation of life with all its problems and with the challenges of post-communism is a common issue to us Greek Catholics and likewise to the Orthodox.
Canon law 702 of the Canon Code of the Eastern Churches expressly forbids con-celebrating the Divine Eucharist with non-Catholic priests and vice versa. This canon law stems from the need of fullness of unity between the Churches. Although in agreement, I believe there is the need to review this canon law revaluing some fundamental points of the Eucharist and of ecumenism, by also specifying the term “non Catholic” used in the aforementioned canon.
…Hence, the Eucharist not only expresses the unity of the church, but produces it. As an element constituting unity, it cannot come afterwards; but must be welcomed as a key moment in order to make our ecumenical aspirations practical.
As an expression of visible unity of the Church, in an ontological sense, that is the fullness of the means of salvation, it is also a promise of the realization of the phenomenon of the visible unity. The Eucharist produces the full visible unity of the Church.
Consequently, we make unity between us real by allowing the non-Catholic Orthodox to participate in communion.
Thus common participation in celebration of the Eucharist between Catholics and Orthodox and vice versa could be that light which enlightens us to achieve the [desire] of our only Lord, Saviour and Shepherd: “Ut unum sint”.
These requirements perhaps are not well present in the official relations between our Churches, but are felt more and more in our daily pastoral work.”

The second proposal was from H. Em. Card. Lubomyr Husar, Major Archbishop, 10.10.2005: “The problem that I face as a Hierarch of a sui iuris Oriental Church refers to numbers 85, 86 and 87 of the Instrumentum Laboris. I express myself in interrogative terms. My preface is that there can be no doubt whatsoever that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the life and the mission of the Church. But this is also true for Oriental [Orthodox] Churches!
- If the Liturgy is a regula fidei (lex orandi, lex credendi)
- if the Divine Liturgy celebrated by Oriental Churches in communion with the See of Rome and by the Orthodox or Apostolical Churches is identical for both,
-if there is mutual recognition of the Apostolic Succession of Bishops and, consequently, of priests that celebrate it, then my question is: what more is required for unity?
Is there maybe another fons or another culmen superior to the Eucharist? And if not, why isn’t con-celebration permitted?”

The Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhoration, Sacramentum Caritatis, gave a direct response to Bishop Mudry’s conviction that the Eucharist “not only expresses the unity of the church, but produces it” and, thus, should be used as a means to reach that end: “The subject of participation in the Eucharist inevitably raises the question of Christians belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this regard, it must be said that the intrinsic link between the Eucharist and the Church's unity inspires us to long for the day when we will be able to celebrate the Holy Eucharist together with all believers in Christ, and in this way to express visibly the fullness of unity that Christ willed for his disciples (cf. Jn 17:21). On the other hand, the respect we owe to the sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood prevents us from making it a mere “means” to be used indiscriminately in order to attain that unity. The Eucharist in fact not only manifests our personal communion with Jesus Christ, but also implies full communion with the Church. This is the reason why, sadly albeit not without hope, we ask Christians who are not Catholic to understand and respect our conviction, which is grounded in the Bible and Tradition. We hold that eucharistic communion and ecclesial communion are so linked as to make it generally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive the former without enjoying the latter. There would be even less sense in actually concelebrating with ministers of Churches or ecclesial communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church” (n. 56).

Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, can be cited as a response to Card. Husar’s query as to “what more is required for unity?” The answer being that unity in the profession of faith, in the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance are prerequisites to unity in the Eucharist: “In considering the Eucharist as the sacrament of ecclesial communion, there is one subject which, due to its importance, must not be overlooked: I am referring to the relationship of the Eucharist to ecumenical activity. We should all give thanks to the Blessed Trinity for the many members of the faithful throughout the world who in recent decades have felt an ardent desire for unity among all Christians…
Precisely because the Church’s unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord's sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established. Any such concelebration would not be a valid means, and might well prove instead to be an obstacle, to the attainment of full communion, by weakening the sense of how far we remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities with regard to one or another truth of the faith. The path towards full unity can only be undertaken in truth…
I would like nonetheless to reaffirm what I said in my Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint after having acknowledged the impossibility of Eucharistic sharing: “And yet we do have a burning desire to join in celebrating the one Eucharist of the Lord, and this desire itself is already a common prayer of praise, a single supplication. Together we speak to the Father and increasingly we do so 'with one heart'” (nn. 43-44).

It is interesting to note the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s “Considerations on The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church” (October 31, 1998), which underlines the Pope’s ministry of unity in every Divine Liturgy: “The unity of the Church, which the ministry of Peter's Successor serves in a unique way, reaches its highest expression in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is the centre and root of ecclesial communion; this communion is also necessarily based on the unity of the Episcopate. Therefore, “every celebration of the Eucharist is performed in union not only with the proper Bishop, but also with the Pope, with the episcopal order, with all the clergy, and with the entire people. Every valid celebration of the Eucharist expresses this universal communion with Peter and with the whole Church, or objectively calls for it”, as in the case of the Churches which are not in full communion with the Apostolic See” (n. 11).

Moreover the Catholic Church teaches that: “In the divine plan for the primacy as “the office that was given individually by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be handed on to his successors”, we already see the purpose of the Petrine charism, i.e., “the unity of faith and communion” of all believers. The Roman Pontiff, as the Successor of Peter, is “the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity both of the Bishops and of the multitude of the faithful”,and therefore he has a specific ministerial grace for serving that unity of faith and communion which is necessary for the Church to fulfil her saving mission” (CDF, “Considerations”, n. 4).
“The characteristics of exercising the primacy must be understood primarily on the basis of two fundamental premises: the unity of the episcopacy and the episcopal nature of the primacy itself. Since the episcopacy is “one and undivided”, the primacy of the Pope implies the authority effectively to serve the unity of all the Bishops and all the faithful, and "is exercised on various levels, including vigilance over the handing down of the Word, the celebration of the liturgy and the sacraments, the Church’s mission, discipline and the Christian life”; on these levels, by the will of Christ, everyone in the Church — Bishops and the other faithful — owe obedience to the Successor of Peter, who is also the guarantor of the legitimate diversity of rites, disciplines and ecclesiastical structures between East and West.” (CDF, “Considerations”, n. 11).

With all this in mind, doesn’t it seem ironic that the more “catholic” (not as in Roman, but “catholic” as in true profession of faith or "orthodoxy") the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church would be, the more Byzantine and Ukrainian it would remain, since the Pope is the “guarantor” of its diversity and uniqueness. Just a thought for a church sui juris struggling with its identity and allegiances.