Putinism and the Ukrainian Catholic Church
October 13, 2011
Tim Kelleher
On March 25th of this year, Sviatoslav Shevchuk was elected head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC).
Are those crickets I hear? The sound of one hand clapping, perhaps? Put another way: Why does this matter?
To begin, the election entrusts to his care the souls of some four and a quarter million Christians, all heirs to a lineage of tragedy that spans centuries and includes the Soviet-perpetrated monstrosity of the Holodomor, in which an estimated three to ten million people were programmatically starved to death in the single year, 1932-1933. Throughout this and other episodes of national suffering, the UGCC acted largely to protect the people and lead in the resistance to both Nazi and Soviet tyranny.
During the turbulence of the twentieth century, Shevchuk’s predecessors distinguished themselves as heroic, sometimes pugnacious leaders—more prophets than princes of the Church—who regularly placed themselves at personal risk. The names Sheptytsky, Slipyj, and Husar come quickly to mind.
It is in the stead of such giants that Shevchuk now stands—at the remarkable age of forty. Such youth comes with its share of advantages and liabilities. Among the former, one may assume there is energy. He’ll need it.
Shevchuk assumes his role in a world experiencing the Chinese curse of interesting times, with paradigms shifting faster than a gear-stick in Mario Andretti’s palm.
Russia is host to a still-shifting paradigm, and from his office in Kiev, Sviatoslav Shevchuk need only look out the window to see it.
The history of the Orthodox Church in the land of Kievan-Rus is so complex that to call it Byzantine is both pun and fact. And, to be clear, the UGCC is an Orthodox Church. That it identifies as such while living in communion with the bishop of Rome is an important aspect of that complexity.
In addition to the UGCC, three distinct Orthodox Churches exist in Ukraine, each with claims that challenge the legitimacy of the others. This multiplicity is rooted in the trauma of the Soviet era when the world’s largest Orthodox Church, the Moscow Patriarchate, was accused of colluding with the Kremlin. This is sensitive, difficult terrain, and beyond the scope of this essay. But recent news that former KGB officer Vladimir Putin will likely return to the Russian presidency in 2012, underscores the importance of ecclesial politics in the future of Ukraine and all of Eastern Europe.
George Weigel has been one of few in the U.S. to call attention to this unfolding story. In Ukraine there are many keen on strengthening ties with Moscow, even unto reunification. And some of Putin’s critics see in his cultivation of relations with the Moscow Patriarchate, an essential element in a re-imagined imperialism, with Orthodoxy replacing Marxism as the source of its inspiration and broker of its divine mandate. If these critics are on to something, and if history offers a clue, such an agenda would require the elimination of the “competition.” Ominous then, is Weigel’s account of old-school intimidation tactics deployed against an especially impressive UGCC initiative, The Ukrainian Catholic University.
At the same time, Benedict XVI has made progress toward communion with the Orthodox a priority of his pontificate. There are profound theological reasons for this. There is also the mutual recognition that the Latin and Orthodox Churches must forge a genuine evangelical partnership on behalf of Europe. One might even suggest that the restoration of that continent’s soul depends upon the restoration of the unity of the apostolic Church, breathing with “both lungs.”
This is a challenge steep enough to be impossible, had it not everything to do with the kingdom of God.
It is my hope that this partnership be engaged, and that it be extended to include the entire West in a coordinated mission to re-present the Gospel to a culture in dire need of it. What then might we expect the UGCC to contribute to this ambitious project?
Since 2001, the bishops of the UGCC have held at least fifteen international synods, at a considerable expense of time and money. From them, one word perennially emerges to express the collective discernment and serve as the clarion call for going forward: Evangelization.
I should admit that mine is a somewhat unusual point of view. I wasn’t born into the UGCC. Neither was I drawn to it by any outreach on its part. In fact, I stumbled into an intimacy with it that, in addition to reception into the Church, has included the privilege of entering one its seminaries.
There are many things to say from this perspective. Preparing to serve a people whose faith I shared but whose story I did not know has been humbling. But as my appreciation for the Church’s gifts has grown, so too has my discouragement when failure to adapt, develop and share them seems willful. In countless conversations, cradle-born members of the UGCC have expressed incredulity at my enthusiasm for the Church, while seeming to view their own participation as a form of ethnic fealty.
In many parishes, a sense of desolation is palpable, with services attended by a startling disproportion of elder faithful. This graying—or ghosting – of the parishes is a crisis to which innovative remedies seem noble exceptions rather than the broad harvest of episcopal action matching synodal rhetoric.
On the same soil, Orthodox Churches, dealing with formidable challenges of their own, are finding ways to grow communities true to their lineage and attractive to those outside it, cooperating in projects designed to engage the wider culture.
To be sure, these impressions are anecdotal. Yet, I can’t think of a single person in formation with me who would fault these observations, except perhaps for being too restrained. Within its walls one often hears the frustration that the UGCC is essentially a Latin Church in Byzantine clothing, burying its distinctive gifts like the talents of the Gospel parable. Indeed, not long ago, Rome itself issued a rather stringent exhortation to the Eastern Churches in communion with it to commit themselves to the realization of the charisms unique to their traditions.
Although I have presented what may seem a gloomy forecast, we know how quickly things can change. And I remain hopeful.
The Eastern Churches bear an aspect of the Christian faith that is profound and astonishingly rich, with the power to amaze a culture that wrongly presumes it has seen it all. I also believe our culture is in urgent need of the vast treasure and deep beauty that have been entrusted to these Churches.
This is but a portion of what awaits the considered response of the young man in Kiev now at the helm of a great Church.
In Ukraine, during the celebration of a special occasion, it is customary to sing, Mnohaya Lita (“God grant you many years”). And so, may Sviatoslav Shevchuk prove to be a true apostle, one who guides his Church with wisdom, courage and love. And may God grant him many joyful years in which to do it.
Tim Kelleher is the new media editor for First Things.
RESOURCES
George Weigel, Storm Clouds in Ukraine
Fall Web Campaign: Please donate to support the online mission of First Things.
Comments:
10.13.2011 | 12:39pm
Gregory says:
Sir, I'm very sorry to have to disagree with you, but the UGCC is absolutely not an Orthodox Church. You cannot be "Orthodox" and in communion with Rome, which is itself not Orthodox. Even the "Oriental Orthodox" are not really Orthodox, in the sense that Russian/Greek/Serbian/Georgian Orthodox are not in communion with them. They are not divided by some petty politics, but by very serious divergences in religious doctrine (and certain practice), although perhaps they are more Orthodox than Catholic in religious attitude. To wit, the UGCC recognizes not only the supremacy, but the infallibility of the Pope of Rome, as well as Catholic teachings on the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory. These are teachings rejected by the Orthodox Church. They also accept post-Schism Catholic saints.
The UGCC looks virtually identical to Orthodox churches in practice, because they *were* Orthodox churches who entered into communion with Rome (and LEFT communion with the Orthodox) on the condition that they could maintain their external practices and customs, including an iconostasis, icons, services in the local language, married/bearded clergy, and so forth. But these external trappings to not encapsulate Orthodox doctrine and teaching, and the UGCC follows neither. They are wholly a part of the Catholic Communion, and cannot be called Orthodox.
The UGCC looks virtually identical to Orthodox churches in practice, because they *were* Orthodox churches who entered into communion with Rome (and LEFT communion with the Orthodox) on the condition that they could maintain their external practices and customs, including an iconostasis, icons, services in the local language, married/bearded clergy, and so forth. But these external trappings to not encapsulate Orthodox doctrine and teaching, and the UGCC follows neither. They are wholly a part of the Catholic Communion, and cannot be called Orthodox.
10.13.2011 | 1:29pm
M. Chen says:
Thank you for the good article. I'll pray Sviatoslav Shevchuk be a Timothy in his calling.
10.13.2011 | 2:06pm
Fake Herzog says:
Tim,
Great article. I know a bit about your church only because here in Chicago we have a unique (and I would say beautiful) UGCC known as St. Joseph's. Here is their website if readers want to check out their modern yet distinctively orthodox church architecture:
http://www.stjosephukr.com/
Great article. I know a bit about your church only because here in Chicago we have a unique (and I would say beautiful) UGCC known as St. Joseph's. Here is their website if readers want to check out their modern yet distinctively orthodox church architecture:
http://www.stjosephukr.com/
10.13.2011 | 3:26pm
David says:
Gegory is absolutely correct !
The UGCC like all the GCC is under the total authority of the bishop of Rome.
Just because they sound, sing, look and even have the Orthodox looking "architecture", doesn't mean they are the historical true faith.
Besides what Gregory listed above, let remind those of you that history is clear that the original Church was and remains collegiate in authority as it was made clear with seven Ecumeical Councils.
Sadly the GCC in the Ukraine and else where have chosen to DELETE that Christian history.
UGCC needs to cvome HOME to it's Orthodox Christian roots just like my grand parents did 100 plus years ago
The UGCC like all the GCC is under the total authority of the bishop of Rome.
Just because they sound, sing, look and even have the Orthodox looking "architecture", doesn't mean they are the historical true faith.
Besides what Gregory listed above, let remind those of you that history is clear that the original Church was and remains collegiate in authority as it was made clear with seven Ecumeical Councils.
Sadly the GCC in the Ukraine and else where have chosen to DELETE that Christian history.
UGCC needs to cvome HOME to it's Orthodox Christian roots just like my grand parents did 100 plus years ago
10.13.2011 | 3:43pm
pjsandstrom says:
Gregory, I must respectfully point out that you (and many others) confuse two uses of the word 'orthodox'. The first usage is 'true believer' based on the Councils and classical Creeds (Nicea-Constantinople and Chalcedon etc). The second usage is the 'political party label' which came to use after 1054 and later which distinguishes the orthodox and catholic Christians based on their ecclesiastical connection with Constantinople or Rome. Before the political party label usage (and still in fact) one can correctly insist that the Örthodox are both 'orthodox and catholic' and the Catholics are both 'catholic and orthodox'. The denial of 'catholic and orthodox' to the Greek Catholics of the Ukraine and elsewhere is just not true, if looked at objectively.
10.13.2011 | 4:35pm
Daniel says:
This is an excellent article! It is rare to read such balanced and honest writing on the UGCC or any GCC for that matter.
David and Gregory, regarding your statements about...
...the Pope: so the definition of being Orthodox means not being in communion with the Pope?
...Purgatory: does the Orthodox Church have only one teaching on what happens to the soul after death?
...the non-Chalcedonian Churches: does one have to be "Byzantine Rite" to be Orthodox? If not, please explain what "Western Rite Orthodoxy" is?
It would be worthwhile to read the new Catechism of the UGCC, which Sviatoslav Shevchuk helped edit, and see what it says about all these questions.
David and Gregory, regarding your statements about...
...the Pope: so the definition of being Orthodox means not being in communion with the Pope?
...Purgatory: does the Orthodox Church have only one teaching on what happens to the soul after death?
...the non-Chalcedonian Churches: does one have to be "Byzantine Rite" to be Orthodox? If not, please explain what "Western Rite Orthodoxy" is?
It would be worthwhile to read the new Catechism of the UGCC, which Sviatoslav Shevchuk helped edit, and see what it says about all these questions.
10.13.2011 | 5:25pm
Observer says:
Old people are not "ghosts"! Please...such a disrespectful word for devout older people.
10.13.2011 | 5:30pm
Alex says:
@ Gregory and others.... regardless if one agrees with Uniatism or not, I don't see how the term Orthodox cannot be applied - for the simple reason that communion is not a strict requirement. No one argues that Greek Old Calendarists, pre-2006 ROCOR, the UOC-KP, or UAOC in Ukraine are "Orthodox" - none of them are in communion with canonical orthodoxy, either.
10.13.2011 | 5:36pm
A.M. says:
Agree with the comments on the excellence of the article .
That it came out today , on this Feast of the Miracle of The Sun , in Fatima ( Oct 13th ) may be providential - The Mother of our Lord was sent there , with the plea for prayers , indirectly for unity ( conversion of Russia ) , with the hope that, a culture set on power could be moved with that of a Mother's love !
Human misery, sufferings and wars that start in human hearts and the way back , also to start in human hearts that turn to God and His goodness.
If the label 'Orthodox ' has led to an almost idolatrous attachment to attitudes /ways on the part of those who use that term to foster selfserving divisiveness , hoping that being tended onto higher grounds in truth and unity would only be seen as being truly faithful to The Lord and His anointed , - Peter , who has been entrusted with the mission , to tend and feed and thus being truly orthodox !
May the sun shine in the hearts of the Russian leaders , to recognise that
respect and mercy towards The Church and those who lead Her may be the most peaceful and easiest means , to bring the good they want for their people too !
That it came out today , on this Feast of the Miracle of The Sun , in Fatima ( Oct 13th ) may be providential - The Mother of our Lord was sent there , with the plea for prayers , indirectly for unity ( conversion of Russia ) , with the hope that, a culture set on power could be moved with that of a Mother's love !
Human misery, sufferings and wars that start in human hearts and the way back , also to start in human hearts that turn to God and His goodness.
If the label 'Orthodox ' has led to an almost idolatrous attachment to attitudes /ways on the part of those who use that term to foster selfserving divisiveness , hoping that being tended onto higher grounds in truth and unity would only be seen as being truly faithful to The Lord and His anointed , - Peter , who has been entrusted with the mission , to tend and feed and thus being truly orthodox !
May the sun shine in the hearts of the Russian leaders , to recognise that
respect and mercy towards The Church and those who lead Her may be the most peaceful and easiest means , to bring the good they want for their people too !
10.13.2011 | 6:35pm
Mark Hartman says:
As a Latin-rite Catholic who regularly attends a Ukrainian Catholic Church (and is considered a parishoner, regardless of rite), I have some comments.
First as to the role of the Pope. Every time this subject is mentioned, I recall a story (possibly apocryphal) concerning a session of the old Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission. The Anglicans, of course, have a similar problem with the Pope, but couldn't seem to get the Catholics to clarify their position. Finally, and in frustration, one of the Anglicans asked bluntly, "Just what IS the definition of the role of the Pope, anyway?" The Catholics hastily conferred, and, embarrassed, answered that they really didn't know. Even more with the Eastern churches is the difference in basic attitude, which emphasizes the mystical over the legalistic (to grossly simplify the issue). "Defining" something to a degree that would satisfy everyone seems to be antithetical to the Eastern character.
Our parish bulletin regularly has very spiritual articles written by Orthodox clergy, none of which would be objectionable to any Catholic. The commemoration of the Holodomor each year is celebrated by our pastor together with the local Ukrainian Orthodox priests. In all important ways (yes, ALL, David), we are Catholic and Orthodox, and with good will and prayer on both sides of the Catholic/Orthodox divide, perhaps the UGCC will become the bridge between East and West.
First as to the role of the Pope. Every time this subject is mentioned, I recall a story (possibly apocryphal) concerning a session of the old Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission. The Anglicans, of course, have a similar problem with the Pope, but couldn't seem to get the Catholics to clarify their position. Finally, and in frustration, one of the Anglicans asked bluntly, "Just what IS the definition of the role of the Pope, anyway?" The Catholics hastily conferred, and, embarrassed, answered that they really didn't know. Even more with the Eastern churches is the difference in basic attitude, which emphasizes the mystical over the legalistic (to grossly simplify the issue). "Defining" something to a degree that would satisfy everyone seems to be antithetical to the Eastern character.
Our parish bulletin regularly has very spiritual articles written by Orthodox clergy, none of which would be objectionable to any Catholic. The commemoration of the Holodomor each year is celebrated by our pastor together with the local Ukrainian Orthodox priests. In all important ways (yes, ALL, David), we are Catholic and Orthodox, and with good will and prayer on both sides of the Catholic/Orthodox divide, perhaps the UGCC will become the bridge between East and West.
10.13.2011 | 7:54pm
joseph says:
gregory is right the ukrainian greek catholic church and her uniate brothers are trying to deceive others in thinking they are still part of the orthodox church when in fact they gave up that right with the treaty of brest and when those same orthodox christians left the church to have commuion with rome the doctrines are as followed the papal supremecy, papal infailibilty, purgatory, the filoque, the virgin mary's immaculate conception by st anna ,indullgences these are the doctrines which divide us in the eastern orthodox chruch and which separates us from our uniate brothers if the eastern rite chruch were allowed to omit those doctrines they could rejoin the eastern orthodox church and the tension in the former soviet union would not be their plus the fact you have the roman catholic church stop trying to expanding their latin rite churches in russia i can see in siberia where their are many people who were former prisoners of the gulag now live in the area around where the camps once stood their are many catholics who were forced their from the mainly catholic nations who made up the former soviet satelite countries but in moscow and the main cities in russia and they are setting up a diocese in these cities and apointing a bishop that is just roman catholic way of trying to steal sheep from the russian orthodox church plain and clear the eastern orthodox church asks the local catholic bishop when a orthodox church is built in a western europeon country out of common does the roman catholic return the courtesy
10.13.2011 | 9:48pm
John L says:
I have attended Ukrainian Catholic churches in both Canada and Australia, and have noticed the graying of the congregation. It's not hard to find the explanation for this; when efforts are made to get people to come to Ukrainian Catholic Churches, there is one reason never given - it is never said that you should go to church in order to get to heaven. This is never said in Catholic churches of the Latin rite either; the Ukrainian practice probably reflects a bad Latin influence. But this is the message that needs to be announced - not 'cooperating in projects designed to engage the wider culture'. And on the question of Ukrainian Catholic vs. Orthodox; there is an increasing tendency among the Ukrainian Catholics (again due to bad Latin, or rather papal, example) to deny that the Orthodox are in schism, and to present themselves as just another branch of the Orthodox church, albeit one that is more friendly to Rome than most. Since rejection of the authority of Rome is the whole rationale of the Orthodox church as a separate entity, for Ukrainian Catholics to present themselves as another Orthodox church is to accept the status of a second-rate unsatisfactory version of the real thing - exactly what the Orthodox consider them to be. So then what's the point of them and why attend?
10.13.2011 | 10:06pm
Nancy D. says:
Not to mention, in regards to The Filioque, if we believe that Jesus Christ is One in Being with The Father, then in the inherent, ordered, relationship of Perfect Love that is The Blessed Trinity, The Holy Spirit must proceed from The Love Between The Father and The Son.
10.13.2011 | 11:36pm
Jeremy says:
To be fair, Orthodoxy cannot be best described through polemics. The absence of pope, purgatory, and Latin rite does not make a church Orthodox. As are all things, Orthodoxy is better defined by what it is than what it is not.
Orthodoxy is a beautiful expression of the fullness of the Church. It is an image of the communion of the three hypostaseis of the Holy Trinity; an icon of the communion between God and mankind for which man was made. It is imperfect, but beautiful precisely because it is an icon which points to the Truth and Beauty of God, Who is ineffable, inconceivable, invisible, and incomprehensible.
Orthodoxy is an icon of this Beauty; something, or rather Someone, the world needs to see more of. In reading this article, I am thankful that the author of the above article --in addition to many in the West -- recognizes this beauty as something which is abundantly present within Orthodox Churches, not as something exclusive to Orthodox but something that needs to be seen more abundantly in both East and West, precisely because we are made for nothing less than communion with God and one another.
The split between East and West is a tragedy just as every fracture within the Church is a tragedy. However, in any effort towards unity between East and West, the profound differences between both cannot be ignored. To highlight only of few of these -- Cappadocian compared to Augustinian Trinitarian theology, a tradition of apophatic theology in place of a tradition of scholastic theology, a different place for Plato and Aristotle within theology, and a theology which is often best expressed liturgically as opposed to systematically.
Forgive me brothers and sisters if I have offended or misunderstood.
Orthodoxy is a beautiful expression of the fullness of the Church. It is an image of the communion of the three hypostaseis of the Holy Trinity; an icon of the communion between God and mankind for which man was made. It is imperfect, but beautiful precisely because it is an icon which points to the Truth and Beauty of God, Who is ineffable, inconceivable, invisible, and incomprehensible.
Orthodoxy is an icon of this Beauty; something, or rather Someone, the world needs to see more of. In reading this article, I am thankful that the author of the above article --in addition to many in the West -- recognizes this beauty as something which is abundantly present within Orthodox Churches, not as something exclusive to Orthodox but something that needs to be seen more abundantly in both East and West, precisely because we are made for nothing less than communion with God and one another.
The split between East and West is a tragedy just as every fracture within the Church is a tragedy. However, in any effort towards unity between East and West, the profound differences between both cannot be ignored. To highlight only of few of these -- Cappadocian compared to Augustinian Trinitarian theology, a tradition of apophatic theology in place of a tradition of scholastic theology, a different place for Plato and Aristotle within theology, and a theology which is often best expressed liturgically as opposed to systematically.
Forgive me brothers and sisters if I have offended or misunderstood.
10.13.2011 | 11:52pm
Ben says:
This article uses "Orthodox" in two different ways. It describes the Ukrainian Catholic Church as "an Orthodox Church," but it also speaks of Benedict XVI making "progress toward communion with the Orthodox." I think it is fair to say that while the UGCC may see itself as "Orthodox," this is not the common usage of the term in discussing those Churches which are in union with Rome and those which are not. Generally speaking, common usage describes those in union with Rome as "Catholic" and reserves "Orthodox" for those Churches (Eastern and Oriental) which are not in union with Rome. Of course, the Orthodox Churches not in union with Rome consider themselves "Catholic" as well. In the famous 1997 Letter from Rome (signed by Cardinals Ratzinger, Silverstrini and Cassidy) to the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch on Kyr Zoghby's initiative for dual communion, this common distinction between "Catholic" and "Orthodox" is maintained. The letter further stated that it was "not possible" for Eastern Catholics to make the profession: "I believe everything that Eastern Orthodoxy teaches." My personal opinion is that the common usage should prevail in a publication like First Things so that we don't start battles over terminology and get sidetracked from the substantive issues that the article addresses.
A question was asked about the newly released UGCC Catechism "Christ our Pascha," which was approved by their Holy Synod and also reviewed by the Eastern Congregation in Rome. Paragraphs 291 and 293 explicitly re-affirm the Catholic dogmas of papal infallibility and papal supremacy, quoting the Council of Florence, Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus) and Vatican II (Lumen Gentium). The Council of Florence is also quoted to support in the context of discussion on the procession of the Holy Spirit (para. 98), and Purgatory (para. 250). In addition, the Immaculate Conception is taught in paragraph 311 with a specific quote from Pope Pius IX's bull Ineffabilis Deus. To use the common distinctions of "Orthodox" and "Catholic," one would say that these teachings contained in the new UGCC Catechism are not those of the Orthodox Church. That, of course, is to be expected as the new UGCC Catechism is a Catholic catechism and not an Orthodox catechism. Having said that, I feel confident that Orthodox Christians will be able to find much other material in it that is in harmony with what they believe.
A question was asked about the newly released UGCC Catechism "Christ our Pascha," which was approved by their Holy Synod and also reviewed by the Eastern Congregation in Rome. Paragraphs 291 and 293 explicitly re-affirm the Catholic dogmas of papal infallibility and papal supremacy, quoting the Council of Florence, Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus) and Vatican II (Lumen Gentium). The Council of Florence is also quoted to support in the context of discussion on the procession of the Holy Spirit (para. 98), and Purgatory (para. 250). In addition, the Immaculate Conception is taught in paragraph 311 with a specific quote from Pope Pius IX's bull Ineffabilis Deus. To use the common distinctions of "Orthodox" and "Catholic," one would say that these teachings contained in the new UGCC Catechism are not those of the Orthodox Church. That, of course, is to be expected as the new UGCC Catechism is a Catholic catechism and not an Orthodox catechism. Having said that, I feel confident that Orthodox Christians will be able to find much other material in it that is in harmony with what they believe.
10.14.2011 | 8:37am
Matthew says:
Glory be to Jesus Christ!
The UGCC is the best thing that ever happened to me.
Much prayer and fasting is needed on all sides for love, honesty, humility, and the eventual recommunion of all of the apostolic churches, on whatever model our spiritual fathers work out.
The UGCC is the best thing that ever happened to me.
Much prayer and fasting is needed on all sides for love, honesty, humility, and the eventual recommunion of all of the apostolic churches, on whatever model our spiritual fathers work out.
10.14.2011 | 9:05am
Chris says:
The UGCC is NOT an Orthodox Church. Orthodox churches do not submit to the pope and abide by other heresies. If the UGCC wishes to unite herself to the Holy Orthodox Church, then she must repudiate her submission to Rome and renounce the other heresies she has adopted for five hundred years. It is not possible to believe everything what Orthodoxy teaches and be a slave to the papacy.
10.14.2011 | 9:34am
Bill says:
As soon as an Eastern Catholic Church is mentioned anywhere, Orthodox apologists come out of the woodwork to attack.
Radical Orthodox are like radical hockey fans... always disappointed that what they see is the best thing ever just gets ignored over and over and over again, so they attack the dominant paradigm.
We Catholics have a LOT to feel bad about in our history, but at least we can hold claim to being a truly universal church. Orthodoxy has a pretty sorry history itself, but you get that when you cozy up to Caesar as often as it has.
Radical Orthodox are like radical hockey fans... always disappointed that what they see is the best thing ever just gets ignored over and over and over again, so they attack the dominant paradigm.
We Catholics have a LOT to feel bad about in our history, but at least we can hold claim to being a truly universal church. Orthodoxy has a pretty sorry history itself, but you get that when you cozy up to Caesar as often as it has.
10.14.2011 | 10:24am
patricksarsfield says:
David writes:
"Just because they sound, sing, look and even have the Orthodox looking "architecture", doesn't mean they are the historical true faith. Besides what Gregory listed above, let remind those of you that history is clear that the original Church was and remains collegiate in authority as it was made clear with seven Ecumeical Councils. "
The Eastern Orthodox churches (EOCs) are more true than the Catholic Church? Sorry, History doesn't support that.
What History actually shows is that EOxy was so enslaved by its Byzantine secular overlord (the Eastern "Roman" Emperor) that it called the Constantinopolitan ruler the "Equal of the Apostles" ("Isopostolos") and followed his lead instead of listening to the rest of the Church and to the Petrine See of Rome. As a result, Byzantium came down on the wrong side of the Arian issue until shamed into an appropriate position by the Roman and Alexandrian archbishops. Likewise, when Byzantium's throne came into the possession of an Iconoclast, EOxy went off into that sad century-long episode. Indeed, Nestorius was a Constantinopolitan patriarch
The mutual anathemata between Rome and Constantinople again were related to the EO patriarch's devotion to the political wishes of the Isopostolos than to any real theological question. The proof of the lack of real disagreement on such theological issues as the Filioque and the azymes is that when Constantinople was faced with its imminent demise, the Isopostolos and his minion church were quickly able to resolve their differences with Rome at the Council of Florence-Ferrara in 1439 and the Church was reunified for 13+ years. Unfortunately for Christendom, the Isopostolos was not able to defend his realm and EOxy fell into the hands of the Sultan of Rum. The precise date on which Constantinople again should be said to be in schism from Rome is unclear because the Phanar's (i.e., the EO "Vatican") enslavement was not accompanied by any very clear declaration of the end of the Reunification.
For the hundreds of years that have become known as the Tourkokratia Period, EOxy then accepted the rule of the Turkish non-Christian as though he too were Isopostolos in exchange for its right to rule all Christians in the Ottoman Empire who were held as non-Muslims in the inferior status known as dhimmitude. Shameful stuff that is not so different from the breakaway Russian EO Church's relationship with such wonderful rulers as Ivan the Terrible or the atheist Joe Stalin.
And EOxy's cozy arrangement with its Constantinopolitan overlord even belies the claim that EOxy has been a paragon example of "collegiality." In truth, the so-called EO "patriarchs" of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem lined up with Constantinople (to the extent they did) because they were representatives of the Emperor's Church and Government in regions where most of the christians were opposed to the orthodox position and belonged to non-Chalcedonian churches whose patriarchs were NOT in communion with Constantinople or Rome. Those "EO patriarchs of A, A and J" have no greater claim to being the patriarchs of those towns than do the Eastern Rite Patriarchs of those locales who ARE in communion with the See of Rome. The awful truth is that once those towns split off from Chalcedonian Christianity in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries as a result of the Monophysite, Monothelite and Nestorian controversies, they were ripe for the plucking and have spent the last 1400 years in perpetual dhimmitude. Rome can name bishops "in partes infidelibus" as validly as can the EO patriarchs/emperors.
"Just because they sound, sing, look and even have the Orthodox looking "architecture", doesn't mean they are the historical true faith. Besides what Gregory listed above, let remind those of you that history is clear that the original Church was and remains collegiate in authority as it was made clear with seven Ecumeical Councils. "
The Eastern Orthodox churches (EOCs) are more true than the Catholic Church? Sorry, History doesn't support that.
What History actually shows is that EOxy was so enslaved by its Byzantine secular overlord (the Eastern "Roman" Emperor) that it called the Constantinopolitan ruler the "Equal of the Apostles" ("Isopostolos") and followed his lead instead of listening to the rest of the Church and to the Petrine See of Rome. As a result, Byzantium came down on the wrong side of the Arian issue until shamed into an appropriate position by the Roman and Alexandrian archbishops. Likewise, when Byzantium's throne came into the possession of an Iconoclast, EOxy went off into that sad century-long episode. Indeed, Nestorius was a Constantinopolitan patriarch
The mutual anathemata between Rome and Constantinople again were related to the EO patriarch's devotion to the political wishes of the Isopostolos than to any real theological question. The proof of the lack of real disagreement on such theological issues as the Filioque and the azymes is that when Constantinople was faced with its imminent demise, the Isopostolos and his minion church were quickly able to resolve their differences with Rome at the Council of Florence-Ferrara in 1439 and the Church was reunified for 13+ years. Unfortunately for Christendom, the Isopostolos was not able to defend his realm and EOxy fell into the hands of the Sultan of Rum. The precise date on which Constantinople again should be said to be in schism from Rome is unclear because the Phanar's (i.e., the EO "Vatican") enslavement was not accompanied by any very clear declaration of the end of the Reunification.
For the hundreds of years that have become known as the Tourkokratia Period, EOxy then accepted the rule of the Turkish non-Christian as though he too were Isopostolos in exchange for its right to rule all Christians in the Ottoman Empire who were held as non-Muslims in the inferior status known as dhimmitude. Shameful stuff that is not so different from the breakaway Russian EO Church's relationship with such wonderful rulers as Ivan the Terrible or the atheist Joe Stalin.
And EOxy's cozy arrangement with its Constantinopolitan overlord even belies the claim that EOxy has been a paragon example of "collegiality." In truth, the so-called EO "patriarchs" of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem lined up with Constantinople (to the extent they did) because they were representatives of the Emperor's Church and Government in regions where most of the christians were opposed to the orthodox position and belonged to non-Chalcedonian churches whose patriarchs were NOT in communion with Constantinople or Rome. Those "EO patriarchs of A, A and J" have no greater claim to being the patriarchs of those towns than do the Eastern Rite Patriarchs of those locales who ARE in communion with the See of Rome. The awful truth is that once those towns split off from Chalcedonian Christianity in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries as a result of the Monophysite, Monothelite and Nestorian controversies, they were ripe for the plucking and have spent the last 1400 years in perpetual dhimmitude. Rome can name bishops "in partes infidelibus" as validly as can the EO patriarchs/emperors.
10.14.2011 | 1:22pm
Nishant says:
I always think Rome is extremely warm and kind in dealing with those in separation and that is fine, but when people say the sort of things they have been saying here, with false allegations against Holy Mother Church, then they need to be corrected.
Two historical testimonies to Roman primacy alone disprove the contentions of the separated Churches of the East.
1. For the Orientals, the statement made by Philip the presbyter in front of the whole synod in the Council of Ephesus (431 A.D)
"There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince () and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation () of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place"
2. For the Greeks, the statements of St.Maximus' (b. 580) are really astonishing.
"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world — for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also."
There is no one who cannot see that all authority belongs to holy Roman Church with her glorious and Apostolic traditions, and none at all to schismatic Constantinople until it returns to communion with the Catholic Church, fully assenting to all her holy Councils. Russia and others are united to the latter simply as a historical accident and on account of geographical location.
Two historical testimonies to Roman primacy alone disprove the contentions of the separated Churches of the East.
1. For the Orientals, the statement made by Philip the presbyter in front of the whole synod in the Council of Ephesus (431 A.D)
"There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince () and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation () of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place"
2. For the Greeks, the statements of St.Maximus' (b. 580) are really astonishing.
"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world — for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also."
There is no one who cannot see that all authority belongs to holy Roman Church with her glorious and Apostolic traditions, and none at all to schismatic Constantinople until it returns to communion with the Catholic Church, fully assenting to all her holy Councils. Russia and others are united to the latter simply as a historical accident and on account of geographical location.
10.14.2011 | 1:45pm
kelso says:
Jesus did not establish His Church with many visible heads. The Church is monarchic, with the Bishop of Rome as ultimate authority on matters of faith and morals. Ecumenical councils can issue infallible canons and creeds, but they must be sanctioned by the pope. Was it not in the East at Chalcedon where the monophysite heresy was condemned and all the bishops stood up after the reading of Pope Leo's tome and cried out: Peter has spoken through Leo? Unity with the Orthodox can only be achieved when they renounced their schism. Just as no Israelitr one could question the authority of Moses, no Christian can reject the authority of the pope, which, of course, has its limits.
10.14.2011 | 3:29pm
JoeBrooks says:
My new book, "The Four Pillars of the Kingdom" should be out very soon. The work is, not only a response to some of the metaphysical arguments of the so-called New Atheists, but also a call to believers to take their faith serious in a very real way.
You can find an excerpt here: http://bit.ly/qWrueX
I would love to hear your comments!
Thanks,
Joe Brooks
You can find an excerpt here: http://bit.ly/qWrueX
I would love to hear your comments!
Thanks,
Joe Brooks
10.14.2011 | 10:37pm
Dear Mr. Kelleher, I was baptized Catholic and attended Catholic schools kindergarten through graduate school. After Vatican II, I received a papal indult to transfer to the Byzantine - Slav Rite. Over the next ten years I put myself under the direction of Melkite Bishop Joseph Raya and Mitered Archpriest Elias Denisoff (both of thrice blessed memory!). Both encouraged me to become an Orthodox priest. It took another twenty years, by God's grace and the prayers of the Theotokas, before I was ordained a priest within the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch to serve the Ukrainian community. I am sharing this with you to encourage you to rethink being a uniate. I am not a Ukrainian by birth but I have been honored to serve a martyr people and share their aspirations. I think I can speak for my spiritual brothers when I say that "we" Ukrainians are historically an autocephalous Church. We have no reason to be under the authority of any Pope of either Old Rome, New Rome or Third Rome!
10.15.2011 | 1:38am
Seraphim says:
As an Orthodox Christian in communion with Rome (a Greek Catholic) I must correct the commenters who argue that we are confusing two uses of the term "Orthodox". Just as when Catholics call their Church the Catholic Church, we mean by it exactly what Lutherans mean when they call Christianity the "catholic Church" (difference being that Catholics are identifying the term correctly), when Orthodox (AND Eastern Catholics) call our faith "Orthodox", we mean by it precisely that it is the right-believing Faith. We mean by it exactly what we mean when we pray in our Liturgy and Vespers "for all Orthodox Christians", "for all Orthodox Bishops rightly dispensing the word of Your truth", and "O God, strengthen the Orthodox Faith". The word Orthodox is capitalized in the Melkite and UGCC prayer-books.
It is a Latin, not an Eastern, viewpoint to regard communion with a certain bishop as the criterion of Orthodoxy. Though perfection would require both communion with the visible sign of communion and maintaining (O)rthodoxy of faith, St. Basil tells us that heresy is a greater evil to be avoided and feared than schism; schism is just a part of fallen life. We see three Ukrainian Orthodox bodies within "canonical Orthodoxy" on top of the UGCC and dozens of uncanonical sects, none of whom are in mutual communion; until recently there were three Russian Orthodox bodies (Moscow Patriarchate, ROCOR, and the True-Orthodox Church of Russia or "catacomb Church") with no mutual communion, current schisms in Serbia (that of Metropolitan Artemije), and disputes between Greeks and Russians (look at how the presence of the Estonian Orthodox at the Rimini Conference went over, for example), as well as the Greek Old-Calendarists and Russian Old Believers. To isolate those in communion with Rome as "not Orthodox" is simply arbitrary, especially as I've seen plenty of Orthodox priests and laymen receive communion from Eastern Catholic hands and vice versa.
My own family comes from Southern Italy where the Byzantine Christians never left communion with Rome in 1054 (and are therefore not "Uniates") and never left communion with Constantinople. Dual communion was maintained until after the Council of Florence, and in many cities (e.g., Venice) through the 18th century. I'm not sure if it ever officially lapsed.
I am an Orthodox Christian, and I define my Orthodoxy by the Faith I hold, not by schism from the Rock upon which Christ built His Church. In the words of our Father among the saints Maximos the Confessor, "if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox. He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who refuse obedience to His Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See."
It is a Latin, not an Eastern, viewpoint to regard communion with a certain bishop as the criterion of Orthodoxy. Though perfection would require both communion with the visible sign of communion and maintaining (O)rthodoxy of faith, St. Basil tells us that heresy is a greater evil to be avoided and feared than schism; schism is just a part of fallen life. We see three Ukrainian Orthodox bodies within "canonical Orthodoxy" on top of the UGCC and dozens of uncanonical sects, none of whom are in mutual communion; until recently there were three Russian Orthodox bodies (Moscow Patriarchate, ROCOR, and the True-Orthodox Church of Russia or "catacomb Church") with no mutual communion, current schisms in Serbia (that of Metropolitan Artemije), and disputes between Greeks and Russians (look at how the presence of the Estonian Orthodox at the Rimini Conference went over, for example), as well as the Greek Old-Calendarists and Russian Old Believers. To isolate those in communion with Rome as "not Orthodox" is simply arbitrary, especially as I've seen plenty of Orthodox priests and laymen receive communion from Eastern Catholic hands and vice versa.
My own family comes from Southern Italy where the Byzantine Christians never left communion with Rome in 1054 (and are therefore not "Uniates") and never left communion with Constantinople. Dual communion was maintained until after the Council of Florence, and in many cities (e.g., Venice) through the 18th century. I'm not sure if it ever officially lapsed.
I am an Orthodox Christian, and I define my Orthodoxy by the Faith I hold, not by schism from the Rock upon which Christ built His Church. In the words of our Father among the saints Maximos the Confessor, "if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox. He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who refuse obedience to His Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See."
10.15.2011 | 7:56am
Nishant says:
Upon St.Peter was conferred the supreme pastorate of all the sheep, he being given the Keys of the Kingdom by the Master Himself, and made the earthly foundation stone of the House of God. This is the divine constitution left to the Church by her Lord which she can in no wise change. All of the sheep without exception are under the personal jurisdiction of St.Peter.
"Autocephalous Churches" are in schism from the universal and Catholic Church since they reject this divinely instituted hierarchical constitutive principle.
"Autocephalous Churches" are in schism from the universal and Catholic Church since they reject this divinely instituted hierarchical constitutive principle.
10.17.2011 | 9:34am
patricksarsfield says:
Priest Kurt Spengler writes:
" I think I can speak for my spiritual brothers when I say that "we" Ukrainians are historically an autocephalous Church. We have no reason to be under the authority of any Pope of either Old Rome, New Rome or Third Rome! "
Where in the Bible does it say that Christ's Commission to the Church to preach and teach throughout the whole World somehow excepted Ukraine (the borderland between Russia and the rest of the World)? Particularly since neither Russia nor even Kievan Rus existed at the time Christ gave the Universal Church its commission? In fact, the term "borderlands" (which is what the term Ukraine means) had little significance until the Seventeenth Century and the rise of the Cossacks.
The idea that somehow Christ's commission is subordinate to the vagaries of power struggles of various groups within a geographic area is entirely unsupported by the Bible (see, e.g., Acts 16:1-5). While the Orthodox case made for five "equal" patriarchates is itself unhistorical (see my comments above), the claim that every local suzerain or power faction can declare his/their captive church self-ruling ("autocephalous") is even more bizarre.
Are the few Chechen Christians now autocephalous (at least so long as they remain outside the hands of Mother Russia? The Moldovians? Are the people of the Western Ukraine properly part of the Western Church when Poland rules Lwow or when Austria rules the same town (which it called Lemberg) or of the Moscow Patriarchate when Russia controls what it calls Lvov, but members of the Ukrainian when their troops control the same town known in Ukrainian as Lviv? When Nazi Germany controlled Ukraine throughout most of WWII, should the Ukrainian Orthodox properly have been DEEMED part of some German Christian entity or of some other entity favored by the Nazis?
" I think I can speak for my spiritual brothers when I say that "we" Ukrainians are historically an autocephalous Church. We have no reason to be under the authority of any Pope of either Old Rome, New Rome or Third Rome! "
Where in the Bible does it say that Christ's Commission to the Church to preach and teach throughout the whole World somehow excepted Ukraine (the borderland between Russia and the rest of the World)? Particularly since neither Russia nor even Kievan Rus existed at the time Christ gave the Universal Church its commission? In fact, the term "borderlands" (which is what the term Ukraine means) had little significance until the Seventeenth Century and the rise of the Cossacks.
The idea that somehow Christ's commission is subordinate to the vagaries of power struggles of various groups within a geographic area is entirely unsupported by the Bible (see, e.g., Acts 16:1-5). While the Orthodox case made for five "equal" patriarchates is itself unhistorical (see my comments above), the claim that every local suzerain or power faction can declare his/their captive church self-ruling ("autocephalous") is even more bizarre.
Are the few Chechen Christians now autocephalous (at least so long as they remain outside the hands of Mother Russia? The Moldovians? Are the people of the Western Ukraine properly part of the Western Church when Poland rules Lwow or when Austria rules the same town (which it called Lemberg) or of the Moscow Patriarchate when Russia controls what it calls Lvov, but members of the Ukrainian when their troops control the same town known in Ukrainian as Lviv? When Nazi Germany controlled Ukraine throughout most of WWII, should the Ukrainian Orthodox properly have been DEEMED part of some German Christian entity or of some other entity favored by the Nazis?
10.17.2011 | 4:30pm
Jon Andrew says:
@patricksarsfield -- What are the sources for your claims, other than the Scriptures? I find reason to disagree with a number of your claims, but to be fair, I want to see where we are getting our information first.
10.17.2011 | 11:56pm
patricksarsfield says:
Jon Andrew:
Asking me such broad, non-specific questions is not helpful. I have been very specific. If you want to question a particular item, please specify my claim and your reason to disagree with it. Then perhaps a dialogue might occur.
Asking me such broad, non-specific questions is not helpful. I have been very specific. If you want to question a particular item, please specify my claim and your reason to disagree with it. Then perhaps a dialogue might occur.
3.5.2012 | 4:01pm
lucas says:
If one has given up asserting that there is only one holy catholic and apostolic church and that there is the Catholic Church it is hardly surprising that there has been a graying of the congregation. Why bother having the hassle of a pope and some different dogmas if it doesnt really matter what church you belong to? Or having to travel a long way to find a church when you could just go to an orthodox one? The answer of course is that there is no reason to bother and one will simply turn up to the orthodox church, which is what many converts to eastern catholicism has done. Further this 'hyper ecumenicism' which encourages inter communion and forsakes the missionary nature of the Church necessarily leads to the conclusion that all those martyrs that died for being catholic and/or Church unity died needlessly and in fact were foolish to do so. They could merely have entered a'sister church' and all would be well, who can be surprised that God witholds his blessings from such a Church? Or that the blood of the martys does them no good?
4.29.2012 | 3:35pm
Dr. K Z K says:
All persons who have commented on this article have both innate and historic validations of thought and opinion. What is most important, however, is to look at the essence of the Christian religion, how it evolved in dimension and meaning, to see how it is being challenged by the forces of history at this time, and to know that unless the Orthodox and Catholic groups join in unity to be as One even with the differences that many can put forth - that the Church as is known will be even further fragmented and could become a former point in history, much like the stories of the ancient river valleys of civilization. Both Churches - the Orthodox and the Catholic reach into the human essence of the Existential Brain in unique ways that can be validated by scientific brain research - meaning that they meet what the human needs to 'Go Through the Icon' into the world of God and Jesus. Can not the differences in the various parts of both Churches be excused and forgiven so that there can be a Union of strength, a Union to let the various groups of the Church share, meet, exchange and even discuss how the unified Church can save the Earth, the planet - for peace, harmony, love, and salvation ? If human behaviors can be forgiven among the world's populations, as is taught in Christianity by Jesus, cannot the parts of the Church come together to do the same ? This is a serious historic matter and must be solved. I would beg all Christians within the domains of the Orthodox and Catholic Church - to place the Union of the two parts of the One Church as the most important historic mission to accomplish - as a beginning for the salvation of itself, its believers and for the world to live in peace. This UNION can mark the strength and hope for humanity on Earth to survive. This Union can be the Model of harmony for all the world to emulate even within diverse domains.
Please, listen to this message, for it will be the salvation and hope of the future for the Church and for all Mankind.
to survive in peace.
Please, listen to this message, for it will be the salvation and hope of the future for the Church and for all Mankind.
to survive in peace.
5.13.2013 | 4:35am
Nick says:
Gregory,
I must disagree with you. I am a life long member if the UGCC. Coming from a town.of under 3000, it was essentially a microcosm of European Christianity. There were, at one time, 6 Roman Catholic, 2 'Uniate' (Ukrainian and Byzantine Catholic), a Russian Orthodox and two Protestant churches.
I attended public school until.the 7th grade, when I then attended the local Roman Catholic school. That year was the first time I had ever heard of a doctrine called Purgatory.
Our priest was straight off the boat Ukrainian (30 years prior), and his wife taught us kids in 'Sunday school' for lack of a better term. Again, no mention of Purgatory was ever made.
My dad and the Orthodox priest were very good friends. At the time, our priest used Church Slavonic exclusively, and we would also on occasion, especially during Holy Week, attend services at the Orthodox church. Aside from mention of the Pope of Rome, the liturgies were identical. To this day, the Filloque is not said during the Divine Liturgy. It is, in fact, redacted from the books.
The general view, from what we were taught is this. Much as the Russians, Serbs, Greeks Romanians, etc acknowledge their particular Patriarch, we acknowledge the Pope as our Patriarch. As much it irks these Churches, this alone does not discredit or deny neither our Orthodoxy or Catholicism.
I must disagree with you. I am a life long member if the UGCC. Coming from a town.of under 3000, it was essentially a microcosm of European Christianity. There were, at one time, 6 Roman Catholic, 2 'Uniate' (Ukrainian and Byzantine Catholic), a Russian Orthodox and two Protestant churches.
I attended public school until.the 7th grade, when I then attended the local Roman Catholic school. That year was the first time I had ever heard of a doctrine called Purgatory.
Our priest was straight off the boat Ukrainian (30 years prior), and his wife taught us kids in 'Sunday school' for lack of a better term. Again, no mention of Purgatory was ever made.
My dad and the Orthodox priest were very good friends. At the time, our priest used Church Slavonic exclusively, and we would also on occasion, especially during Holy Week, attend services at the Orthodox church. Aside from mention of the Pope of Rome, the liturgies were identical. To this day, the Filloque is not said during the Divine Liturgy. It is, in fact, redacted from the books.
The general view, from what we were taught is this. Much as the Russians, Serbs, Greeks Romanians, etc acknowledge their particular Patriarch, we acknowledge the Pope as our Patriarch. As much it irks these Churches, this alone does not discredit or deny neither our Orthodoxy or Catholicism.
As a Ukrainian Orthodox Christian in the USA who happily sends his child to a UGCC school, I find Pope Benedict to be an inspiring man of God.
We hope for full communion between our churches in our lifetimes. Obviously, from an Orthodox point of view, dogmas such as papal powers, IC, and indulgences are getting in the way.
Glory to God for all things