Is this a Greek Catholic Version of the SSPX?
Brief information about the new bishops of
the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church
+ Markian V. Hitiuk OSBM
Born in 1970, Ukraine. Joined the Order OSBM in 1990. Studied in Warsaw; ordained priest in 1997. In 2003 he received licentiate in theology at the University of Opole. At the present time he lives in the OSBM monastery in Pidhirtsi, the Diocese of Zhovkva.
+ Metoděj R. Špiřík OSBM
Born in 1968, Czech Republic. OSBM novitiate (1991-1992) as well as theo-logical studies finished in Warsaw. Or-dained priest in 1996; in 2002 he re-ceived doctorate in theology at Charles’ University in Prague. As a priest he served in Prague, mainly among Ukrai-nian believers, later he was transferred to Ukraine. At the present time he lives in the OSBM monastery in Pidhirtsi, the Diocese of Zhovkva.
+ Eliáš A. Dohnal OSBM
Born in 1946, Czech Republic. Ordained priest in 1972. Joined the OSBM Order in 1991. Novitiate finished in Warsaw; in 1999 he received doctorate in theology at Charles’ University in Prague. At the present time he lives in the OSBM monastery in Pidhirtsi, the Diocese of Zhovkva.
+ Samuel R. Oberhauser
Born in 1969, Slovak Republic. OSBM no-vitiate finished in Poland; ordained priest in Ivano-Frankivsk (Ukraine) in 2000. In 2008 he received doctorate in pedagogy at the University of St. Constantine Cyril in Nitra. At the present time he serves as parish priest in the village of Pidhirtsi, the Diocese of Zhovkva.
In an open letter to the Holy Father:
Your Holiness,
in sonly confidence we announce to You that we, Markian V. Hitiuk OSBM, Metoděj R. Špiřík OSBM, Eliáš A. Dohnal OSBM and Samuel R. Oberhauser were consecrated Greek-Catholic bishops. We did it in conscious obedience to You, Your Holiness – out of a desire for the salvation of our Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church (UGCC).
Our consecrators were those who became bishops in the time when our Church was liquidated by the betrayal and Communism. We are therefore true successors of the martyrish Church in contradistinction to those who received the spirit of betrayal. With respect to the fact that the information might be abused, all particulars concerning our consecration we will announce to You personally in an audience.
This consecration took place according to the prescribed liturgical observances. All of us 4 bishops of UGCC confess the Catholic faith, unity with You and sonly obedience to You. We are aware that we broke the canon 1459 §1 CCEO. We would like to clarify why we were obliged before God as well as before the Church to make this step. We want to add, too, that the Eastern canon code CCEO does not have punishments latae sententiae, that means, on the strength of law itself. In the Eastern Church every imposition of punishment must be preceded by an ecclesiastical trial. In our case the competent judge, in regard of can. 1060 §1 CCEO, can be only You Yourself.
Your Holiness, by this step we broke neither God’s law nor Church tradition, just a canonical prescription of the current canon law. When there is a man dying, in some events it is even permitted to jump a red signal light. Cardinal A. Casaroli and Cardinal A. Sodano, who You are well acquainted with, have built up inside the Church an antipapal and antichristian system which prevents the Holy Father from promoting God’s people and thereby God’s Spirit to the key posts. This system, especially in the UGCC, anxiously watches its positions and permits nobody among the bishops who would have the Spirit of Christ and who in his heart would be faithful to the Holy Father. The hierarchical structure built up in this way is doing quite the opposite of what You are striving for and what Christ desires. As a result, almost all Catholic theological faculties teach heretical views stemming from the historic-critical method (HCT). Representatives of the Church have opened themselves to the spirit of apostasy and moreover many of them no longer have faith in papacy and practically do not believe in the primacy and infallibility of the Holy Father.
Bishops, priests, religious and laymen have opened themselves to the spirit of occultism (homoeopathy, acupuncture, oriental meditations, modern psychological methods…) and syncretism with pagan religions (yoga, zen, martial arts, oriental philosophies…). However, the height of all is that there are still more and more bishops and priests who are homosexuals or paedophiles. In our Greek-Catholic Church there are several homosexual bishops, which is a scandal and decay of Christianity in its substance.
The antichristian system within the Church, enforced by Card. A. Casaroli, Card. A. Sodano and the present Prefect of Congregation for the Oriental Churches (COCh) Card. L. Sandri, has systematically and purposefully disintegrated our martyrish Church and has not only led her into a practical schism but also opened her to the spirit of apostasy.
When asking about the sense of the law stated in the canon code which prohibits consecration of a bishop without the consent of the Vatican – the answer is: To prevent consecration of a heretic, schismatic, apostate, homosexual… However, if observance of this law leads in practice to the exact opposite, which means that right such men are consecrated, while men who are moral, orthodox and faithful to the Holy Father are not consecrated, the prohibition stated in the canon law has lost its sense and turned harmful to the Church.
The crucial moments in the history of our martyrish Church were the so-called theological conclusions of Balamand, which the COCh and Card. L. Husar have adopted and realize them towards the liquidation of our UGCC. These conclusions state that our martyrish UGCC was an ecclesiological mistake and has no right to existence. Then, however, according to them even Your primacy is an ecclesiological mistake.
Another crucial moment in the liquidation of our Church was the illegitimate installation of Lubomyr Husar to the post of Head of UGCC. He was consecrated bishop not only without the consent of the Vatican but also without any serious need. Against the will of the Synod and against the will of three Metropolitans, Card. A. Sodano, Card. A. Silvestrini and Apostolic Nuncio A. Franko promoted to the post of Head of UGCC a man who had and has schismatic and apostatic views, as it is testified in his book “Discussions with Card. L. Husar: On Postconfessional Christianity”. Immediately after his unlawful installation, Card. L. Husar began to liquidate whatever true Catholic opposition and to the key posts he appointed people with the spirit of schism or with the spirit of New Age.
An unwritten rule in the choice of UGCC bishops is the following conditions:
The candidate
-
- must have the spirit of schism and call his believers “pravoslavni” (“Orthodox” – i.e. schismatics).
- must have a negative attitude towards the devotions which in the time of illegality were the force for preserving the living faith and faithfulness to the Holy Father (the Rosary, the Way of the Cross, Worship of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus).
- must also have the spirit of the world and the spirit of New Age.
Your Holiness, from among celibate or religious priests we alone have remained in fact (though there is a large number of priests in the UGCC who have the same attitude of mind) who have the courage to defend the identity of the UGCC as well as Your primacy and infallibility. We have faith, too, in the revival of our Church, and that was why we resolved to make this daring step.
Into Your hands, in regard of can. 1060 §1 pt. 2 CCEO, we commit the future of us and of the whole UGCC. Through this daring step of ours God is giving a chance even to You to open the Church for a spiritual awakening. In the time of Communism it was allowed not to respect certain canonical paragraphs with regard to an extraordinary situation. In the present time, even though there is external freedom, the conditions in our UGCC are, from a certain point of view, harder than in the time of illegality. Therefore the rule that was valid in illegality holds true even in our situation. Who consecrated us, when and where, this we will announce to You personally.
We share with You the unity of faith and are willing even to lay down our lives for the sake of You as the Vicar of Christ and for the sake of the Catholic Church. Your Holiness, even if You condemn us, we do remain Greek-Catholic bishops, but You would thus in fact condemn You Yourself and the whole truly Catholic stream in the Catholic Church which we represent. For we are striving for nothing else but in unity with You for the spiritual resurrection of the Church – for the purification of faith from HCT, from false respect for other religions, from the spirit of New Age and from moral delinquencies of the Church hierarchy – this all today is liquidating the Church at the root.
Should it be necessary to punish, then, Your Holiness, punish those who internally liquidate this Church; this will make sense for her purification.
Your Holiness, we ask You additionally for Your blessing to our episcopal consecration and for our inclusion in the Synod of UGCC.
Both to You and to the Synod of UGCC we propose the following solution:
-
- To install one of us as diocesan bishop in the vacant Buchach eparchy (several weeks ago Bishop I. Bilyk OSBM was driven away from here by Card. L. Husar.), or in the planned Brody eparchy, or to divide the large eparchies into two.
- To include the rest of us as auxiliary bishops, or to assign us for the renewal of religious, priests and seminaries, and at the same time to make the OSBM Monastery of Annunciation in Pidhirtsi exempt from the Order of St. Basil the Great and to establish it as a monastery of pontifical right. To appoint one of us three (+ Metoděj OSBM, + Markian OSBM, + Eliáš OSBM) as archimandrite.
With gratefulness in advance for Your blessing to the episcopal consecration and for the appointment to the service in the UGCC, and with a promise of faithfulness to You and to the Catholic Church:
+ Eliáš A. Dohnal OSBM
+ Metoděj R. Špiřík OSBM+ Markian V. Hitiuk OSBM+ Samuel R. Oberhauser
Monastery OSBM
Pidhirtsi, March 3, 2008
Copies to:
- Cardinals and bishops of the Catholic Church
- Synod of UGCC
Address: Monastery OSBM, Pidhirtsi 80660, Brody district, Lvov region, Ukrainewww.community.org.ua
More details on the UGCC bishop who has acted as their patron at least up into this point.
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
Dave Hartline
March 28, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
This is huge.
March 28, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
I thought so too…..
March 28, 2008 at 6:45 pm |
“Bishops, priests, religious and LAYMEN have opened themselves to the spirit of occultism (homoeopathy, acupuncture, oriental meditations, modern psychological methods…) and syncretism with pagan religions (yoga, zen, martial arts, oriental philosophies…).”
Looks like they have blasted me as well.
This is very bad, I offer my prayers that they will end this schism.
March 28, 2008 at 7:34 pm |
I’m more interested in whether there’s any truth to their claims than the predictable charges of schism and ensuing excommunications. While not a Latinizer myself, I agree with the dissidents that the ecumenist (syncretist?) tendency is a cancer eating away at the Ukrainian Catholic Church. I wonder if this group will join forces with Fr Kovpak’s SSJK.
March 28, 2008 at 7:40 pm |
What?
The UGCCers that I know love the Pope, the Church, and were sent to Siberia for being Catholic. There is no syncretism in the people that I know personally.
March 28, 2008 at 9:56 pm |
It sure would be good to learn to what extent their charges are accurate. If the Melkite cancer has moved to the UGCC, then they may very well have a point, not that I would ever support schism. Interesting that they risk schism in the name of avoiding a schismatic spirit. Why havent they just worked out their problems through the Vatican to begin with? So many question unanswered include the number and proportion of their following in the UGCC.
So glad not to be pope!
March 28, 2008 at 10:08 pm |
OK, wordpress doesn’t let me copy and paste. Hate it.
Anyway, I have to agree with Fr. J thatI don’t agree with schism, but I also wonder how bad things are there. I mean, there are definitely problems in the Church. Some of us (like me) are lucky and have a bishop (HE Thomas Olmsted) who is actively working to reorient his diocese (and I mean ‘reorient’, you get me?). Others have been living in LA all their lives and sufferings the whips, slings, arrows and veils of male-liturgical dancers.
I like that they at least acknowledged the great gravity of the path they had taken and expressed a wish to be united to the Pope. I hope this means things will work out (However, they expose some political alliances in the Vatican of which I was naively unaware.)
March 28, 2008 at 11:58 pm |
Nobody here is arguing for schism and nobody should. We need to find out, as Fr J. says, the extent to which “the Melkite cancer” [which I would define as the new orientation that took place since the misguided patriarchate of Maximos IV Saigh] has spread to the UGCC.
Let us pray for our priests and bishops, and for solid vocations (and true reunion with the Orthodox).
March 29, 2008 at 1:33 am |
John Collorafi,
The “Melkite cancer” is not nearly as bad in the UGCC since we have some pretty bad memories with the Russian Orthodox betraying us to the communists. Some times huge fist fights occur in the countryside to this day between Ukrainian Catholics and Russian Orthodox over who owns parish properity. Patriarch Lubomyr has been working and building relations with the nationalist Ukrainian Orthodox – Kyiv Patriarchy (UOC-KP) who are in schism with the Russian Orthodox. President Yushenko along with a huge chunck of the Ukrainian population belong to the UOC-KP and he has been a supporter of the warming of relations with the UGCC. Patriarch Lubomyr, along with the president, hopes for the merger of the UGCC and UOC-KP to create a new national Church that will be both Catholic and Orthodox, this is why Moscow hates the UGCC and I imagine it is this ecumenism that has created the ire of these Basilians who think negotiating with the “enemy pravoslavni” to be unacceptable after what they put us through the last 60 years.
March 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
Having used such strong language as “Malkite cancer,” I should clarify myself. As a Latin Catholic I really have no opinion about the Latinizations such as the Sacred Heart, the Stations, etc. Eastern Catholic definitely have to work that out for themselves.
What I regard as the Melkite problem is the rejection of papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility and the last 14 ecumenical councils as the Melkites have done. I think it just doesn’t make sense to be in communion with Rome which makes universal absolute doctrinal claims and simultaneously reject those doctrinal claims. It is illogical, and an ideological suicide.
March 29, 2008 at 6:50 pm |
The web site of the “Ukraine Four” has taken bold positions against Modernism, syncretism, false ecumenism, Freemasonry and prelates of the Casaroli school.
The only theological position I find troubling is their apparent embrace of the charismatic movement. I hope I have misunderstood them, because that spoils a set of otherwise excellent doctrinal positions.
March 29, 2008 at 8:40 pm |
Think what you want about our affairs but as an Ukrainian Catholic my loyalty, along with every other Ukrainian Catholic in America, is to Patriarch Lubomyr and the Synod.
March 30, 2008 at 9:06 am |
I support 100% these courageous bishops. The situation they reveal today is the same in the Latin Church is living since the Council Vatican II, which must be seen as the main cause of the actual crisis in the Catholic Church. Hold on! We kep you in our prayers.
March 30, 2008 at 6:41 pm |
I would like to add the Successor of the Apostle Peter to Zan’s list. I’m sure few if any are “disloyal”. However, without quesion, not all American Ukrainian Catholics are terribly excited about “their patriarch” (a title which the Sovreign Pontiff has chosen not to confer on Cardinal Husar, who signs ALL his correspondence “Major Archbishop”, exactly as his predecessor).
March 31, 2008 at 4:08 am |
Fr. O. Welcome to Per Christum. I would like to understand your comment better. Are you saying that the attempts to de-Latinize in the East are an extension of the post conciliar problems in the West? It seems to this poor Latin that the Eastern return to the iconostasis is the exact opposite of the remove of the altar rails in the West. Maybe I am misunderstanding you or you are referring to some other parallels.
March 31, 2008 at 5:36 am |
The word delatinization has become equivocal. It used to mean bringing back the iconostases and replacing statues with icons. Those were good things.
Now, however, the term is being extended to mean reduction of the ecumenical councils to seven, and rejection of dogmas that the popes have defined unilaterally, like the Assumption and Immaculate Conception. This is heresy pure and simple.
Another equivocation is the claim of delatinizing while introducing novusordoizing abuses into the Divine Liturgy, such as inclusive language. While Ukraine may not quite be ready for that degree of change, it has already happened in the American Ruthenian Church.
March 31, 2008 at 12:37 pm |
John, thanks for the explanation. I have thought of this as a Melkite phenomenon. To what extent has this metastasized?
What does it mean to be in communion with a Church whose teaching you believe utterly false? Either Mary is Immaculately Conceived or she is not. She cannot be so conceived for one region of the church and not so conceived in another region of the church. The Melkite cancer makes the Catholic Church a liar. If I am misunderstanding this, someone please explain to me how this can all be fit together rationally.
In the West we have lived through the ideologization of reform, even the idolization of reform. This is a severe problem. As we all know, it can take 50 or 60 years to undo the damages of a bad decade. If our bad decade was 68-78, we are now 30 years into the recovery with no immediate end in sight. With the Vatican taking a low profile in correction, it is hard to imagine a recovery being possible in the East if this is taken too far.
March 31, 2008 at 10:57 pm |
Don’t get me wrong my loyalty is of course to the Vicar of Christ and I’m wearing a miraculous medal and of my three patron saints one of them is the Mother of God in form of the Immaculate Conception. But I am a Byzantine Catholic and adhere to Eastern Catholic theology – as dose Patriarch Lubomyr. (note: Eastern Catholic theology is NOT the same as Eastern Orthodox theology.) He is not this liberal demon and the only time I ever hear people say bad stuff about him is from Latins on the internet. Go to the UGCC website and read some of his writings and statements, you will not find anything heretical or schismatic. Is he rather ecumenical but heck it is nothing compared to Rome, Was it not Pope Benedict allowed Rowan Williams to have “mass” on a Catholic altar while he was visiting?
“Ukie”, I’m surprised you don’t call Cardinal Lubomyr “patriarch”, the only reason why he isn’t one officially is because Rome dose not want to offend the Russian Orthodox. So who again has the false spirit of ecumenism?
April 1, 2008 at 1:29 am |
Zan, of course I have seen your around PC in the coboxes and always appreciate your comments. Please know that I am not critical of persons or liturgies or rites or traditions in themselves. I have a real fondness for Eastern liturgy and Eastern Christians. What most concerns me is an irrational approach to theology.
For all of us in communion with Rome, while we are distinct churches in our own rights we are also together one Church, the Church. So, it concerns me that part of that Church has 21 ecumenical councils and another part has 7, part recognizes papal infallibility and part doesnt, part regards certain teachings as absolutely true in themselves and another part is utterly indifferent to these teachings. From a purely rational point of view, this doesnt make sense.
This undermines the very meaning of being Catholic. It worries me that this challenge comes at a time when the whole of the Church is facing the twin and growing crises of secularism and Islam. If precisely at this moment when we need to know who we are and what we believe as Catholics we have whole sectors of the Church shedding what is left of this bulwark, then we will face wholesale collapse of the faith in our lifetimes. And who would this please? The Evil One, no doubt, and every other detractor of the Catholic faith. If the Melkites have given themselves over to a complete hatred of Western Christianity, (which is apparent from what I have experienced on the Net) and they want to see the complete unravelling of the Catholic Church, they should just keep doing what they are doing. But, they should know that if Catholicism falls, Orthodoxy which is much more fragile, will be next, in very, very short order.
In my lifetime, we have witnessed the collapse of the faith in Western Europe (yes, that includes Greece). It is not impossible to imagine that similar collapses might occur wherever else the Church retains strength if we are not unified–and that includes all of Orthodoxy as well.
The Melkites are playing recklessly with fire, and they just don’t seem to give a damn.
Zan, if I have this all wrong, I really am open to correction. If someone is working on some bridge theology that holds this all together despite differences, I am all ears. If there really arent any inconsistencies, please show me where I am misinterpreting the matter.
April 1, 2008 at 11:16 am |
Father, I agree 100%. I also, along with 98% of practicing Eastern Cathholics believe everything in the catechism (which btw was written for both Eastern and Western Catholics by Cardinal Schonborn, himself being biritual with degrees in Byzantine theology). As for Eastern Catholic theology we Byzantine Catholics have an obligation to keep to our origins and use theological concepts and terms taught by the great Byzantine Catholic saints like St. Germanus the Confessor, St. John Chrysosotm, and St. Basil the Great to name a few. Even the Lefebvrite Society of St. Josaphat teach their seminarians the Greek Fathers instead of Western Fathers.
About bridging everything together check this out http://www.east2west.org – some areas he is a little too Eastern but hey, I know plenty of Roman Catholics who are a little too Western :)
April 1, 2008 at 11:25 am |
Oh yeah to nobody in particular – I forgot to add just because some Melkite heirarch is a little off his theological rocker dose not mean every Eastern Catholic bishop who has friendly tes with Eastern Orthodox are defacto schismatics and reject everything post-1054. Never has Patriarch Lubomyr rejected any post schism Ecumenical Council nor has he ever reject the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility.
April 1, 2008 at 5:27 pm |
Thanks, Zan, for your responses and for the link which I will have to spend some time studying. I completely (100% !!) agree with you that Easterners need to be immersed in their own tradition, rites, theology, spirituality. This is their particular saltiness that they bring to the rest of the Church.
It does seem that the Melkite craziness is concentrated in some parts of the internet and misrepresented as a majority position. It is hard for me to believe as some claim, that millions of Catholics in the Ukraine and other places are willing to simply abandon their catholicity for which so many suffered and died in the gulags. How can a faith that has suffered so many martyrs be treated as something empty, alien and worthy to be discarded?
So, thanks for clearing things up, Zan. I appreciate your perspective because it helps me to put into perspective my experiences with the “2%” minority who have rather falsely portrayed themselves as the face of the Catholic East on some web forums. I am glad that they are not.
April 2, 2008 at 9:37 pm |
If the current direction of the church is wrong, what do people think of possibly retracting the CCEO, and the Sui Iuris status of the Greek Catholic churches? Would that improve matters?
April 2, 2008 at 10:06 pm |
Well, Zan, why are you surprised. Either the Roman Pontiff recognises the title or he doesn’t. May I add that no Catholic or Orthodox patriarch rexcognises this title. I am not opposed to a patriarchate in the slighest, but the UGCC cannot proclaim one simply because the fascist government-in-exile convinced Slipyj that he had a right to self-declare himself one. JPII gave the UGCC a synodal structure and that is sufficient. What the patriarchal movement (irrelevant among the UGCC faithful in Ukraine) wants is their own pope.
April 3, 2008 at 2:08 am |
I’m sorry but there is no question that the Cardinal is reducing defined dogmas to theologoumena; anyone who may still have doubts about that may read this interview:
http://www.cardinalrating.com/cardinal_43__article_6834.htm
April 3, 2008 at 4:33 am |
Thanks, John. It took me a while to find the relevant passage, so I am copying it here:
AA: What are the conditions to have eucharistic communion between the believers of the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church? Is it necessary to have the same theology of marriage, of filioque , of purgatory?
LH: No. Our attitude practically is that between the Orthodox and ourselves there are no differences in faith. Questions like purgatory, the Immaculate Conception or the filioque are theological concepts, not faith. And they of course are very different, but they are ultimately complementary. So they do not represent a different faith. They represent a different understanding of the gift of faith. What is our practical stand on intercommunion? If a Catholic finds himself in a position where there is no Catholic church around, he can freely go to the Orthodox church and receive sacraments. The same thing when an Orthodox cannot find an Orthodox priest, we don’t deny him the sacraments, especially confession and holy Communion. The only problem is the scandal that it means, not to give the impression that it doesn’t make a difference what you are. You are what you are. But the circumstances are such that you are in need and we are open to help you or to being helped.
It seems that there are a variety of opinions on the subject of an Eastern rejection of Catholic infallible doctrine. This case sure points in the direction of an official rejection. Still, I can make no claim one way or the other as this is all new to me. It is still hard to know what to make of it all. Your theologumena comment does seem to fit with this quote, I’ll say.
April 3, 2008 at 5:11 am |
Hesychios – no, I don’t think anyone is calling for that. It is a provacative thing for an Orthodox to bring up, but I am largely not suprised. It isn’t part of our ethos or ecclesiology to be consumed by ethno-nation-states fighting for, securing, and then protecting rights and styles of self-governance.
April 3, 2008 at 5:42 pm |
[...] according to the Gregorian Calendar — of four Ukrainian Greek Catholic priests as bishops (source), without being nominated by the Major Archbishop of Kyiv and head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic [...]
April 5, 2008 at 12:38 am |
ASimpleSinner Says:
“no, I don’t think anyone is calling for that. It is a provacative thing for an Orthodox to bring up, but I am largely not suprised. It isn’t part of our ethos or ecclesiology to be consumed by ethno-nation-states fighting for, securing, and then protecting rights and styles of self-governance.”
Surprised or not surprised it’s a serious question, and I don’t understand what you are saying here about ethno-nation whatevers.
If people are unsatisfied with the direction of the Patriarchate, or Metropolitanate, or whatever it is called perhaps it’s time to take a look back at the way things were before the CCEO. Would that help?
As Major-Metropolitan head of a synod of a Sui Iuris church, Cardinal Lubomyr Husar has every right to take his Sui Iuris church in the direction he has taken it thus far. I don’t believe he has violated one canon. Some people here are calling the Melkite church cancerous and comparing it to the Ukrainian church. Some people are thinking an appeal to Rome is proper.
What is that telling us? Is it time to rein in on this experiment, or is everyone prepared to follow this new path?
What if the Cardinal succeeds in forging a new relationship with the UOC-KP that is no longer fully under the control of the Pope of Rome? Who will follow him in this…will you?
April 5, 2008 at 1:03 am |
Last things first, no, I would not follow any bishop, patriarch or oft-referred to as patriarch but in fact archbishop out of communion with the Holy See. My allegiance is not to the ethnarch/national church, it is to the Catholic Church.
I don’t really get your point about the CCEO – if you could explain more, we might be able to talk about it…
“Ethno-nations whatever” as you put it is my concern (or at least disinterest) in replicating in Eastern Catholic circles certain of the Orthodox obsessions over creating Churches with new found or greater autonomy directly tied to ethnic and nation state status. Because the Orthodox of Madeupisonia in the former USSR are chomping at the bit for their oblast to become an independent repubilc they are in need of a seperate and autonomous hierarchy? What does self-governance change for any number of these groups? That just isn’t something we replicate – or at least did not used to do so. Understand Hesychios, if some are hoping to steam role into a singular national church first and foremost concearned with “Ukrainianess” before being Catholic or Orthodox… well that is a pill you and I – I should think – would both find bitter.
If Father J is too outspoken or harsh in his comments, well I can somewhat understand why that dog growls – during his brief tenure among an Eastern Catholic forum he was told by certain idealogues that Byzantine Catholics repudiate the last 14 Catholic councils and have unilaterally understood them to be just general councils of the west… That would largely be news to Rome, I should think. That as the case may be, he was banned in rather short order while some who were rather rude to him seem to be given the utmost defference… It is funny how much I am dealing with someone else’s comments in private correspondance here and elsewhere when I should think I only have to talk about what I wrote. Some people are alluding (perhaps?) to the idea that I need to censor people better. That isn’t part of my routine. Places where that does play out… well, best of luck to them.
April 5, 2008 at 11:55 am |
Dear Simple,
First of all, I would beg your forgiveness for intruding on your home turf, I didn’t realize this is your website at the time and I might not be coming back except out of casual curiosity. I followed your link and that’s all.
My initial comments were not directed at you, but at the readership here in general. And I don’t know where the censorship idea came from, I did not propose any such thing. So if you want to disavow yourself from the comments of the various posters that doesn’t interest me in the slightest.
You said “I would not follow any bishop, patriarch or oft-referred to as patriarch but in fact archbishop out of communion with the Holy See.”. But that was not what I asked. I asked if you “What if the Cardinal succeeds in forging a new relationship with the UOC-KP that is no longer fully under the control of the Pope of Rome? Who will follow him in this…will you?” which is a different thing entirely. One need not be fully under the control of the Holy See to be in communion with the Holy See.
For the record, I do not feel, and never have felt, that the multiplication of Patriarchates, in Orthodoxy or Catholicism, is necessary or particularly useful. I would rather have that title limited to the first five in an ideal world. But the cat’s out of the bag, isn’t it? Medieval kings wanted their own patriarchs and they got ‘em. I think it wasn’t so much about prestige as much as a king thinking the only way to assure local control (or his own control, as it was so often in those days) of the synod was to have a duplicate Patriarch for their very own.
I do believe in strong local synods, because I am convinced that historically that is how the church from early centuries was organized. (I disapprove of civil authorities making claims on the church, and this was an endemic problem in the east and the west for many centuries.) So in other words, if (God willing) there is ever reconciliation between your communion and mine, I would expect (or hope for) some changes to the ecclesiology of both.
BTW, the Holy Father has suggested some movement in that direction in his days before the election. You might recall that he suggested the erection of regional Patriarchs for the church. Unless he meant that as a purely honorary title (which I doubt) I believe that he was of a mind to decentralize the administration of the church to some extent. This does begin to approach, in small ways, an earlier ecclesiology of the church.
Back to the original subject. I think that these Ukrainian Bishops, some of whom BTW seem to have originated in other Sui Iuris churches, should not be given a second chance. They should be ordered to repent and accept places in separate monasteries far from each other. They are agents of schism and dissension.
And as to my original comment? I think the Ukrainians would not have this anxiety if they did not have a Sui Iuris church. Ever since the Union of Brest, until very recent decades, the Methodian rite was operated as a subset of the dominant Latin rite. Everyone understood this. I think we can call it the Trent mentality of church, for lack of a better term. The opposite end of the spectrum is a Melkite type cancer, which would never have happened if the church had a crackdown on it early and very hard.
If this “ecumenism” with Orthodoxy is such a serious problem…such a dangerous direction…such a slippery slope, if it needs to be stopped why not remove the Sui Iuris status of these churches and make them toe the line? Would it work?
If you were a UGCC, which you are not I believe (it’s just a hypothetical question), and the synod and patriarch did make such an arrangement with the Orthodox church where would you go? Most likely to a remnant church mission under an Apostolic Administrator appointed by the Pope, no?
Michael
April 8, 2008 at 1:23 am |
Father J, are you perchance the Father J from the Yahoo Orthodox list? If so, I must say I admire you immensely. And, Father, please do not buy the hogwash (from said List) that CAF clamped down on the Orthodox posters because Catholic posters were “dropping like flies,” etc. etc. (If you are the Father J I think you are, you will know what I am referring to.) CAF has serious issues, but that’s not one of them…or, rather, that’s not the true story. By a long shot. Details upon request–as well as corroboration from many, many parties.
April 8, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
Diane, I am sorry to disappoint, but I have never been on the yahoo groups. The closest I have come to that is the PalTalk.com groups.
I used to be on the ByzCath Forum for a while. But, they are very hostile to Latins. [I was booted very rudely for the high crime of pointing out that it makes no sense to be in communion with Rome while rejecting the very teachings she asserts are infallibly true.]
ByzCath seems to me designed to lure good Eastern Catholics into their web of twisted anti-Western thought. They certainly dont want anyone there who can point out the illogic of their positions. So, first, they get Eastern Catholics to reject the last 14 Ecumenical Councils and the Marian doctrines, then they work to get them to leave the Church for Orthodoxy. Fortunately, their readership is an ever shrinking circle of group thinkers. Their hostility to any intellectual theological engagement is drowning them in their own…well, you know what I mean.
Generally, I have found that Catholic attempts at fraternal charity with the Orthodox are rebuffed by a shallow, unlearned polemicism, which saddens me. But, I have generally found it easier to communicate with the Orthodox I have met than with the Melkites and others of like mind.
I was never on CAF, but I have heard about what went on there. It seems another example of Eastern shallow polemicism self destructing once again.
April 10, 2008 at 4:05 am |
“One need not be under the full control of the Holy See to be in communion with the Holy See. ”
Administratively speaking, yes but what do you do with the Dogma of Vatican I? The definition does not stop at infallibility, it also includes UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION and that is built into the Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches, with or without patriarches. Just a question/reflection.
April 15, 2008 at 5:05 pm |
Hey Folks,
I’m a cradle Ukrainian Catholic born and raised in North America and have followed this news and your comments with great interest. Though I almost have a Sacred Theology Licentiate (STL) diploma in my pocket, it is the relatively recent words of Our Lady of Akita (Japan, Oct. 13, 1973) that come to my mind as the most pertinent:
“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way
that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops.
The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres…churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.
“The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God.”
We’re living in times of great spiritual confusion, in addtion to great sin, and, whatever the value and outcome of this situation in Pidhirts’i, the following words of Our Lady in Akita are also useful for us who are on the periphery of the proceedings (Akita, Aug. 3, 1973):
“Many men in this world afflict the Lord. I desire souls to console Him, to soften the anger of the Heavenly Father. I wish, with my Son, for souls who will repair,
by their suffering and their poverty, for the sinners and ingrates.”
Whatever goes on with this episcopal situation — and I do agree with many of the points that the foursome raises — I firmly believe that it is our personal prayers and sacrifices (especially don’t forget sacrifices — even your hangnail is of greater value than you realize!) consciously offered for the sake of God bringing great good out of this that will leave an impact. God often wants our token offering, willingly given, in order to bless us with something — and to remind us that we are all interconnected through Him, even if, humanly speaking, our connection with Bishops Markian, Elias, Metodej, and Samuel is only through floating in blogospheric ether!
BTW, for a good short prentation re Our Lady of Akita, see: . (Quotes in this comment taken from this site.) The message itself, though short, is quite sobering in its entirety.
For an interesting detailed account of what happened in Akita, see Fr. Teiji Yasuda’s book, “Akita: The Tears and Mesage of Mary.” Father Yasuda was chaplain at the convent where the apparitions and related miracles took place, though after the messages themselves.
CHRIST IS RISEN!
April 15, 2008 at 5:08 pm |
PS Appears that the Akita URL didn’t post: it’s http://www.ainglkiss.com/bvm/akita.htm
April 18, 2008 at 10:51 am |
HALELUJA ukrainian BISHOPS
HALELUJA ukrainian BISHOPS
HALELUJA ukrainian BISHOPS
HALELUJA ukrainian BISHOPS
HALELUJA ukrainian BISHOPS
HALELUJA ukrainian BISHOPS
HALELUJA ukrainian BISHOPS
HALELUJA ukrainian BISHOPS
HALELUJA ukrainian BISHOPS
HALELUJA ukrainian BISHOPS
July 27, 2008 at 5:20 am |
Just further evidence of the continuing break up of the Catholic Church, but not to fear. The same thing is happening in the Orthodox and Anglican churches too. These four Ukrainian bishops represent another sad case of clergy threatening the unity of Christendom because they can’t get their own way, or are overtaken by paranoid schizophrenia. Their message has the all too familiar ring of the SSPX crowd.
January 5, 2010 at 5:49 am |
For the sake of the UGCC it is therefore correct to consecrate them as a UGCC bishops…may God reward us the true judgement and may the consecrated UGCC bishops may rewarded or blest by the Holy See….as UGCC bishops…