At a seminar held on Saturday, July 15, 1972, at the Pope Auditorium of the Lincoln Center Campus of Fordham University, a national representation of the Ukrainian laity heard non-Ukrainian scholars uphold the right of their Particular Church to autonomous administration.
The central theme of the seminar was “Patriarchal and Major-Archiepiscopal Autonomy in the Catholic Church: Case Study the Ukrainian Church.”
This theme was developed by the following speakers:
1. Rev. Wilhelm de Vries, S.J., presented a paper on “The Origin of the Eastern Patriarchs and the Power of the Roman Pontiffs.”
Father de Vries is Professor of Theology and History and Dean of Faculty at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome. During Vatican Council II he served as adviser to German Bishops on Eastern Questions. He is the author of many works.
2. Prof. John Madey’s paper dealt with the topic “The Rights Guarantee< to the Ukrainian Catholic Church at the Union at Brest.”
Professor Madey is author of numerous works on question relative to the Eastern Churches among them the book Le Patriarcat Ukrainien (Rome 1971). He is Consultant to the German Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical Affairs. He is the President, Working Group “Meeting with the Eastern Churches.”
3. Rev. George A. Maloney, S.J., spoke on “The Present Canonical Status of the Ukrainian Catholic Church and Its Future.”
Father Maloney of Fordham University is affiliated with the Pope John XXIII Center and editor of Diakonia, author of Cosmic Christ; member, U.S. Bishop`s Commission for Roman Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue.
4. Rev. Ulysses Alexis Floridi, S.J., traced “The Role of Ukraine in Recent Soviet-Vatican Diplomacy.”
Rev. Floridi has given courses on “Soviet Regime and Russian Populism” at Fordham University (New York)j and on “Soviet Ethics” at Faculdale de Filosofia N.S. Medianeira in Sao Paulo, Brazil. He had a fellowship from the Research Intitute on Communist Affairs at Columbia University and there under the chairmanship of Professor Z. Brzezinski wrote a work on “Communism and Radicalism in Brazil.” He is a former staff member of the Italian Jesuit magazine La Civiltà Cattolica and he is a member of the Italian Association of Journalists. He is author of five books and great number of articles.
5. The Moderator was Professor Thomas E. Bird.
Professor Bird is Director of the Scholars Program at the City University of New York and member of the Roman Catholic Bishop`s Theological Commission for Orthodox Affairs. He is co-author of Aspects of Religion in the Soviet Union 1917-1967.
The audience heard Father de Vries say:
“It is important to insist on the fact that the patriarchates grew from below and were not founded by any decree from above, as for instance by a decree of an ecumenical council or of a pope. The origin of the partriarchates is to be sought in the prescriptive right or custom, which was simply ratified by the councils and recognized by the popes. The rights of the patriarchs were not given to them by the popes. Their position was not privileged with regard to Rome, but with regard to the bishops dependant on them. These bishops gave part of their rights to the patriarchs for the sake of better administration of the church. It would be false history to explain the patriarchs’ powers as privileges granted by Rome, to whom these powers per se belonged and who renounced them in favor of the patriarchs. We must avoid the anachronism of thinking that today’s centralized system existed when the patriarchates originated…
The popes were therefore of the view that the rights of the patriarchs had their foundation in prescriptive right and that this was canonized by the canons of the councils. They never claimed to have bestowed on the patriarchs of Alexandria or Antioch their position of preference as a privilege and as a share in the popes’ power. If this be so, the recognition of patriarchs by the pope, which occured in the first millenium, cannot be equivalent to an appointment to office. The election of the patriarch was communicated to Rome and likewise to the patriarchates of the East. Behind this custom was the idea of the necessity that the whole church and especially the highest bishop, that of Rome, accept the important measures of the individual churches…”
Of all the Eastern Churches in Union with Rome the Ukrainian Catholic Church is by far the largest. It constitutes 75% of all Eastern Catholics affiliated with the Holy See. Yet, despite its historical efforts to establish a patriarchal form of administration this has not been achieved. Political expediency on the part of the Vatican in relation to the temporal powers occupying Ukraine is an important factor in this situation. Professor Madey’s paper pointed out that a non-Ukrainian consulting the Annuario Pontificio would never get an accurate image of the Ukrainian Catholic Church because its various ecclesiastical units are listed in a manner conveying the impression that each is completely independent of each other. And, he askss “Is there one Ukrainian Catholic Church or are there several Ukrainian Churches or even ecclesiastical units of the Ukrainian Rite?”
Professor Madey then developed the legal basis on which Major-Archbishop Joseph and the entire Ukrainian hierarchy is acting — the rights of the Ukrainian Church at the time of the Union of Brest in 1596 and their reaffirmation by Vatican II.
He concluded: “The problem touching the Ukrainian Catholic Church is more or less also of other Catholic Eastern Churches. Her Faithful, clergy arid hierarchs should, therefore, continue their efforts towards a full restoration of her status.”
Discussing the present canonical status of the Ukrainian Catholic Church and looking towards its future, Father Maloney said:
“Far from being bridges to the Orthodox, the Uniates, due to the Vatican’s policy of depriving the Eastern Patriarchs and the Ukrainian Major-Archbishop of jurisdiction to rule their faithful wherever they may live, have become doormats to be stepped on and treated as very inferior Catholics. Even more, they have become truly a stumbling block and great obstacle to the Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestants within the circle of the Secretariat of State and the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity because of the Vatican’s attitude towards the Uniates. These all once were Orthodox to whom glowing promises of autonomy had once been preferred by the Vatican, but after re-union was effected, the ancient Oriental rights were suppressed.”
Speaking of tbe plans to re-codify Eastern Law by the new Commission appointed for this task (of which Major-Archbishop Joseph Slipyj is not a member), Father Maloney said:
“The very concept of imposing a uniform code of canon law upon all Eastern Churches is totally erroneous, goes directly against Vatican II’s Decree on the Eastern Churches and is the best way of trampling over the ancient rights enjoyed by these Churches before powerful popes began to usurp their Eastern heritage.”
He concluded:
“What does the future hold out for the Ukrainian Catholic Church? I can see three possibilities. It can continue to accept the role of being a doormat, to being stepped upon whenever a superior Roman Church wishes for ecclesiastical or political gains to itself. This requires no bravery; indeed, it is a cowardly type of Christianity that has failed utterly to see the Holy Spirit moving within the whole universal Church to insist that a plurality of liturgical, theological, and disciplinarian styles of the Catholic experience is not only a possibility but it is to be insisted upon by all members.
The other way open will be to hope breathlessly as a starving beggar stands outside of a wealthy man’s palace, hoping that he will drop into his outstretched had a coin to satisfy his hunger for today. We can forget about Ukrainian heritage, its degree of autonomy granted it by the Church in Brest and restored in Vatican II and hope that the new Commission for revising the Eastern Code of Canon Law will come up with something better than the last Eastern Code. If the prior Code failed so miserably because of latinizations, what hope should we entertain that this Commission will do its job better.
The last way open is one that continues the long road already well familiar to the majority of Ukrainians throughout the world, especially their heroic Major-Archbishop Slipyj. It is the way of standing up to fight for what the Holy Spirit inspires one to believe is right, cost what it may to one’s inconvenience or embarrassment. And it is so clear from the early history of the Ukrainian Catholic Church and now the Vatican Council II that a great share of that autonomy is willed by God in order not only that the Ukrainian Church continue to exist in the 21st century but that it continue to grow abundantly. Jesus Christ never wanted His Church merely to exist, to survice, but He demanded that it bring forth abundant fruit. I think He is clearly and loudly saying the same to Ukrainians everywhere today.”
Father Floridi made the point that more and more Catholics consider present Vatican diplomacy “useless and even harmful, or at least inconsistent…. The Vatican diplomats… a symbol of collusion with the powerful and a sign of insensibility toward the humble and oppressed.” He traced the evolution of the Soviet-Vatican dètente from the end of World War II to date stressing its deviation from the policies of Pope Pius XII with the sacrifice of the Ukrainian Catholic Church to achieve the “peaceful coexistence” promulgated by the Soviet Government and the Moscow patriarchate. He said:
“Unfortunately the “Russian experts” in Rome are helping the torturers and the assassins of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. On their recommendation and presentation Pope Paul praised publicly a controversial man like metropolitan Nikodim. They are giving credit to a Church that is “seriously ill” (Levitin-Krasnow), whole “entire administration, the appointment of priests and bishops (including even the sacreligious churchmen) is secretly managed by the Council for Religious Affairs. A church dictatorially ruled by atheists…” (Solzhenitsyn).
“An ecumenism built up through diplomatic channels, .outside of the people’s involvement, is proved to be doomed. The Council of Florence should not be forgotten. Not going too far in time, we should meditate what Levitin-Krasnow said: neither religion nor atheism can be imposed from above. That’s why we completely share the warning of those Catholic Ukrainians outside the Cathedral of Immaculate Conception in Philadelphia: “VATICAN-MOSKOW DIALOGUE MAY LEAD TO DISASTER!”
The seminar was opened by Dr. M. Nawrockyj of Philadelphia, president of the Society for a Patriarchal System in the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Miss Eva Piddubcheshen, the chairman of the Public Relations Department of this society, had introductory remarks. Prof. M. Labunka presented his personal notes related to distinguished speakers.
Proceedings from the Seminar held at Fordham University in New York on July 15, 1972, are being edited and will appear soon in the form of a brochure. The brochures will be available to everyone through the branches of our organization.
Released by:
Eva Piddubcheshen,
Chairman of Public Relations Department