Re: Aren't we servants of God first?

Subject:

Comments:
: : The Pope does *not* actually govern the Ukrainian Catholic Church. The church is self-governing. It's been stated many times, for example, that the UGCC did not require anyone's permission to move its HQ. The UGCC is in communion with Rome, but it's not ruled by it. That's an extremely important distinction. The UGCC at times sets aside its own goals to further the (ephemeral) cause of Christian unity, but the Pope doesn’t actually dictate to it. : Pardon me, Lada, but that is an extraordinarily naive statement. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, his doctrine is considered infallible by the Roman Catholic Church. If Pope Benedict XVI decided that the married clergy of the UGCC were an offense to God, then the UGCC would have a choice between obeying the Pope or severing ties with Rome. : : It’s also reassuring to see a German pope struggling to greet Ukrainian pilgrims in their own language, as he does on those rare occasions when Ukrainians actually make it to Rome. (I’m not holding my breath waiting for Alexy II to speak Ukrainian.) : While I am no fan of the Moskali, I will say in their defense that at least Ukrainian bishops, priests and laity have a say in their church policy. When the ROC calls a sobor, representatives of the bishops, clergy and laity make policy. The same cannot be said for the UGCC. They can do what they want -- so long as it doesn't conflict with what the Vatican wants. : :In my frustration I have been guilty of wanting to spit on the world’s churches and ally myself with an autocephalous Ukrainian church “without Greeks, Romans or Muscovites.” But make no mistake, this is a huge sin of pride. : You do not understand the Orthodox Conciliar Church government. See my note on the Union of Brest, below. : : There are many false gods out there, but politics is one of the most dangerous. Among other things it leads us to create churches in our own image rather than God’s. You ask, “If Ukrainians can govern themselves politically, then why not ecclesiastically?” It is an extremely seductive prospect, and when most people are asked to choose between church and country, they choose country. The English tried this, and we see the folly of it now. A church was created to suit the sexual and hereditary demands of a wilful monarch, and nearly 500 years later little has changed. The future head of the Church of England is an adulterer married outside the very Church he is destined to head, while the Anglican Communion itself is threatening to implode. To reject this model is not unpatriotic. No one in his right mind would accuse Thomas More of not loving England, yet he recognized that fidelity to God outweighed fidelity to king. Hence, “the King’s good servant, but God’s first.” Likewise, the Catholics of western Ukraine could hardly be accused of lacking patriotism. Still, life is short and the afterlife is eternal, so the only safe course is to err on the side of God. : Bad comparison. The King is the administrative Head of the Church of England, and has been since the time of Henry VIII. Orthodox doctrine can only be determined by an ecumenical council of bishops, clergy and lay representatives. The civil authorities cannot dictate church doctrine in the Orthodox Church. : : <i>John 17:21-22: That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one.</i> : : All Christians have a profound duty to this vision, and we Ukrainians must never lose sight of the ultimate goal: a unified Ukrainian church. But it must never be a completely unaffiliated, autocephalous entity. That would simply turn us into a very large groups of schismatics, and that’s obviously not what Jesus wanted. It must be a church in full union with both the Orthodox and Catholic churches. If anyone is capable of this, Ukrainians are. Remember that Prince Danylo was crowned by a papal legate 199 years after the Great Schism supposedly cut Ukrainians off from Rome. Remember that one of the most enthusiastic proponents of the Union of Florence was Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev. Remember the Unions of Brest and Uzhhorod, which have, at the very least, proven that’s it’s possible to be both Byzantine and Catholic. Finally, look at the response of the UOC-KP and UAOC to the UGCC’s new address. They’ve proven that it’s possible to be Orthodox without hating Rome. I defy anyone to show me how the presence of the UGCC in Kiev does any damage to ecumenism between parties that are genuinely interested in it. (The hysterical response of the UOC-MP and its puppet hardly counts since they’re not remotely interested in dialogue and reconciliation.) Obviously, Ukrainians will need several generations to rid themselves of residual anti-Catholic and anti-Orthodox prejudice, but it is our solemn duty to strive for full, canonical unity among ourselves and with all Christians. <i>Ut unum sint</i>. : Please allow me to compliment you on a well-written post. While we disagree on most issues, I think we can find some common ground. : Like you, I believe in the concept of Christian unity. Galatians 3:28 tells us "There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, but all in Christ Jesus." : In the time of Prince Volodymyr, the Church was one. Even after the schism of 1054, the historic Church of Kyiv was one, in communion with the churches of Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Russia, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. What happened to this unity? : You cited the Union of Brest of 1596 -- but this was the principle of cause of disunity. The Pope of Rome thought that he could make a union with the Rus' Church and Metropolitan of Kyiv by simply signing an agreement. This action was doomed to failure because of the lack of appreciation of the conciliar government of the Orthodox Church. When the bishops of western Rus' held a council in Brest to proclaim union with Rome, this union was almost universally rejected by the representatives of the clergy, laity and those in monastic orders. Even two of the bishops who agreed to the union were forced to disown it. The population was outraged both by the fact that the Church of Kyiv had given up its sovereignty by submitting to Papal supremacy, and by the devious way in which the union was created. Disunity has been the lot of the Ukrainian Church ever since. : If there is to be unity between the Orthodox and the Catholics (and I fervently hope that this day will come), than it must be secured in a more equitable fashion than the Brest agreement. Union will be possible if the Roman Catholic Church agrees to return to the ancient tradition of proclaiming doctrine -- in a council where the entire church is represented. The doctines of Papal supremacy and infallibility are not acceptable. As long as the Pope of Rome continues to proclaim himself the Vicar of Christ on Earth, there will be a formidable barrier to union. : As for the Russians, they are stiff-necked and a pain to deal with. Nevertheless, they also have an impressive, deeply spiritual Christian tradition. No union is possible without them, they will have to be included in the discussion. To dismiss them as incapable of dialogue is not an adequate response, even if their reception of the Late John Paul II in Kyiv was less than Christian. Half the churches in Ukraine belong to the UOC-MP. If you think that all of those people are all "Russians" or unwilling to talk, you would be gravely mistaken. About half of them are Ukrainians caught in limbo -- they are Orthodox, but are worried about being classified as "uncanonical" for choosing a church like the UOC-KP. : Ukraine is democracy. By all means, come to Kyiv, we are willing to talk. But try to understand why some might be a little hesitant or suspicious of the move. Ukraine has had a long and turbulent history. : Love in Christ, : Rab Bozhiy' Hryhory