There is so much that is better than good in the Declaration of Cuba that it seems churlish to carp. But ...
Paragraph 27: I find this enormously strange. Unless the Russian Church is finally conceding that the Bishop of First Rome does have a general supervision of All the Churches so as to maintain or to restore unity and to resolve disputes, I completely fail to see what on earth it has to do with the Pope what the competing Ukrainian Orthodox jurisdictions do. What standing has Rome to prescribe upon what basis in Canon Law Orthodox should reconcile among themselves? I can't help feeling that Moskow has tricked the Vatican into, rather unwisely, taking sides in an intra-Orthodox dispute. No fools, these Russkies.
Paragraph 25: If a group of Bishops with their Clergies and Peoples decide to seek formal links of Communion with the See of S Peter, I do not see upon what grounds of Catholic ecclesiology their request can be denied or rebuffed. Calling it Unia and then deeming that term to be a dirty word is just ecclesiastical spin-doctoring.
Could it be that Moskow is afraid that some of the Ukrainian Orthodox might seek shelter under a Roman, rather than a Muscovite, umbrella? Or is all this part of Moskow's unease that the Ecumenical Patriarchate might (as it has done before) take a 'primatial' hand in the canonical problems within the former Soviet Empire? Or do we have here a device to pre-empt some possible jockying at this year's Pan-Orthodox Conference? Did Cardinal Koch check with Constantinople that these texts were unexceptionable?
A chap can get himself into trouble by flirting with two girls at the same time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Paragraph 27 is interesting, but I don't read it as Rome taking a side. It comes off to me as just more "unity is good, let us all spread the Gospel, each in his own way" gibberish common in joint declarations.
Paragraph 25 reads almost as a capitulation on Rome's part. "We used to try to lure Orthodox away, but now we understand it's BAD."
Yeah. The uniate paragraph is just not right from a Catholic perspective.
The most stunning issue about the declaration from my point of view is the fact, that it uses a very clear language in religious and moral issues. One could even say, that there is no other document in the current pontificate, that sounds so "catholic". I was fighting with tears, when I read the last sentence - not heard anything about the "glory of the Most Holy and indivisible Trinity" for quite a time now ...
Moskva doesn't want either Rome or Constantinople to recognise in any way the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyivan Patriarchate) UOC-KP, or the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC). From the Muscovite point of view these churches are "uncanonical" because they broke away from Moskva in 1992 and 1917 respectively.
Kirill is afraid of losing Ukraine, given that about half of all his practising believers are located in Ukraine rather than Russia, and the UOC-MP (Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate) has been haemorrhaging members and parishes at a substantial rate since Putin began his aggressive occupation of parts of Ukraine. My Ukrainian sources tell me that quite a number of priests who remain in the UOC-MP do not mention Kirill in the Eucharistic Canon, but Onufrii, who is UOC-MP Metropolitan of Kyiv.
Kirill's worst nightmare would be Orthodox Unity of the UOC-MP, UOC-KP and UAOC in Ukraine under the aegis of Constantinople. Even worse if they joined up with the Greek Catholics and returned to unity with Rome. Much of his strategy is to undermine and prevent such rapprochements.
Moskva only gained ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Kyiv in 1686 by dubious means. Having failed to bribe the Patriarch of Constantinople to surrender his rights over Kyiv, the Tsar the bribed the Turkish Sultan with, I think, 200 gold roubles and sable furs, to pressurize the Patriarch of Constantinople to cede Kyiv to Moscow's tender care. The Patriarch gave in, but the next year the Holy Synod of Constantinople condemned the decision as uncanonical.
By the 1596 Union of Brest-Litovsk almost all the central Ukrainian and Belorusian dioceses entered into communion with the Holy See. The Orthodox broke the Union in 1620 by having the Patriarch of Jerusalem ordain a rival "Orthodox" Metropolitan in Kyiv. As Muscovy gradually conquered left-bank and then increasingly right bank Ukraine and Belarus, believers were forced to break their unity with Rome and subject themselves to the Muscovite Church. So much for the religious freedom trumpeted in the Feb 12 declaration.
The same is happening in Crimea and Donbas right now. Greek Catholic parishes have been seized or destroyed, Protestant churches wrecked, some of their pastors killed, all non-Moscow Patriarchate Orthodox persecuted along with the Muslim Tatars. Kirill should be invited to put his own house in order before sounding off about religious liberties in order to dupe the West.
I read paragraph 25 as capitulation as well. And I wonder if the line about 'prosyletism' came from the mouth of our own Pope...
It looked to me as though paragraph 27 was a very clear challenge to 'take sides'. Putin is very firmly taking sides against Ukraine, and this comment looks as though it 'seals the deal' against that poor land.
Mary K Jones
Post a Comment