Advertise in this spot on CatholicCulture.org. View all ads.

Catholic World News News Feature

Truly Byzantine, Truly Catholic March 01, 2004

Cardinal Walter Kasper left Rome on February 16 for a 4-day visit to Moscow. When the Vatican first announced plans for the cardinal's trip, the highlight of the announcement was a projected meeting between Cardinal Kasper and the Russian Orthodox Patriarch, Alexei II of Moscow. But as CWR went to press, the prospects of such a meeting had faded, as the Orthodox hierarchy reacted angrily to suggestions that the Holy See might recognize a new patriarchate for Eastern-rite Catholics in Ukraine.

The Byzantine, or Greek, Catholic Church in Ukraine is by far the largest of all the Eastern churches in communion with the Holy See, claiming over 5 million faithful—mostly in Ukraine, but with substantial numbers also in Poland, Canada, and the United States. After being suppressed and brutally persecuted by the Stalin regime, the Ukrainian Catholic Church sprang vigorously to life after the fall of Communism, and soon began to campaign for recognition of a Ukrainian patriarchate.

Russian Orthodox officials bitterly oppose any such move, arguing that only the Orthodox patriarch of Ukraine deserves canonical recognition. (The Orthodox argument on this point is complicated by the fact that three different Orthodox prelates are currently contesting the leadership of the Ukrainian Orthodox community.)

The Holy See has not announced any plans to recognize a Ukrainian Catholic patriarchate; Vatican officials are known to be split on the wisdom of that move, with Pope John Paul reportedly leaning toward recognition of the Ukrainian patriarchate. However the Moscow patriarchate has insisted that the Vatican should make a public commitment not to recognize such a patriarchate—a step that the Vatican has declined to take.

Last November, Cardinal Kasper wrote to Patriarch Alexei, explaining the arguments in favor of a Ukrainian Catholic patriarchate. His letter drew a heated response from the Russian Orthodox prelate—who soon enlisted the support of other Orthodox patriarchs including the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and the leaders of Orthodox bodies in Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Georgia, Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Albania, and Serbia.

Meanwhile Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, the Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, raised the stakes when he moved his see from Lviv to Kiev. Because the city of Kiev plays a crucial role in the history of Christianity throughout the region, and because Kiev is located in the eastern part of Ukraine, which has been predominantly Orthodox in recent decades (while the Catholic population is stronger in the west), the Moscow patriarchate reacted angrily to that move, arguing that it signaled another Catholic plan for "proselytism" on historically Orthodox territory.

The status of the Ukrainian Catholic Church is also closely tied to the broader debate over "Uniatism." Orthodox leaders have condemned the process by which, in past centuries, various groups of Eastern prelates have broken with their Orthodox brothers and been received back into communion with the Holy See. From the Orthodox perspective, these "Uniate" churches deserted their Byzantine tradition and identity.

In the following interview, which took place on January 26, Cardinal Husar concedes that he does not approve of the process by which the Byzantine Catholic hierarchy in Ukraine was created in the 16th century. Nevertheless, he argues, the Byzantine Catholic Church in Ukraine today is an undeniable historical fact: loyal to the Eastern traditions, yet also loyal to Rome.

[TEXT]

Your Eminence, in the interview you recently gave to the magazine 30 Giorni you explained the reasons for the transfer of your cathedral from Lviv to Kiev. The three arguments are: 1) there are 600,000 Greek Catholics in eastern Ukraine; 2) the history of your Church shows that in 1596 the major see was in Kiev; and 3) Kiev is the capital of Ukraine, and the other religions in Ukraine are also represented there. At the end of the interview, you add another argument. You say that the main reproach against Ukrainian Catholics is that we don’t link Church and nation. Could you comment on how your views of ecclesiology relate to the questions of territory and nation?

Major Archbishop Lubomyr Husar: “Canonical territory” is a very old principle among Christians. Practically from the beginning, it was stated there should be only one bishop for one territory, which I think is perfectly reasonable. It’s very Christian; it’s very traditional.

It has, however, one defect—not the idea itself; we have the defect. The idea is perfect. A bishop, who is the father of all the Christians in a particular area, is supposed to take care of all of them, no matter what their language, their culture. The assumption is—and the reality was, at the beginning of the Christian centuries—that all these people would have one faith. And the bishop as the good father—without having huge territory, but maybe one city, a manageable territory—would take care of all of them. But today we cannot apply this principle.

Why not?

Husar: Because we are not, any more, one Church. We are a divided Church.

Let’s take the example of Germany. We have Catholics and we have Lutherans. They are very different. Will it be possible for one bishop to take care of all of them?

In Eastern Europe today, Orthodox and Greek Catholics are much closer to one another, because, as I see it, we do have one faith. Even though it is frequently said that we do differ in our faith, I don’t think this is true. However, the Patriarchate of Moscow, for example, and our Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine—we differ. We are not, any more, one Church. We are two churches, distinct churches.

Because of that we do have, practically, two canonical territories. We cannot speak any more of one canonical territory. The difference is so fundamental between us, as of today, that I don’t know any one bishop who would be able to take equal care of those people who do recognize the Pope as the visible center of the universal Church, and those who do not. So the application of the old principle does not work.

What would be the ideal situation today?

Husar: I speak as a Catholic, without wishing to impose my vision on anybody. Even if I belong to the Orthodox (in the sense of Byzantine) tradition, I am, at the same time, in communion with the Bishop of Rome. In this sense I am in Eucharistic communion.

I want to underline this; I will give you a very concrete example. What does this communion mean? We have, in the city of Lviv, Cardinal Jaworski, a Latin-rite bishop. I am an Eastern-rite bishop. And yet we can concelebrate, because we are in communion with one another, being in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I share with my Orthodox brother Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev the same liturgical, spiritual, and theological tradition, yet we cannot concelebrate, because we are not in the same communion. This lets us understand that we are not really one Church in each other’s eyes. So the claim of canonical territory, in this situation of division, is not applicable.

On November 29, 2003, the Pope received a letter from Patriarch Bartholomew, in response to a letter of Cardinal Kasper addressed to Patriarch Alexei II of Moscow. Cardinal Kasper outlined the argument in favoring of recognizing a Ukrainian Catholic patriarchate, citing the canons that established the patriarchal law in the Church at the 4th Council of Chalcedon in 451. Patriarch Bartholomew rejected this approach and invoked the Council of Constantinople (879-880), speaking of the inviolability of the limits of traditional patriarchal sees.

But the metropolitanate of Kiev, of which your see is the inheritor, signed the act of union with Rome at the Council of Florence in 1439. And your Church, unlike Moscow and Constantinople, has never revoked that proclamation of union. Isn’t this the reason for the discord with Patriarch Bartholomew?

Husar: I have great difficulties understanding his argumentation. We have—we had—a very close relationship with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. It is through this patriarchate that Christianity officially came into what today is Ukraine. However, his argumentation to me is not very clear.

There is not the least doubt that patriarchates, in the course of history, have been erected, created, and recognized in very different ways. The old, classical way was that the ecumenical council—one of those original great seven councils—acknowledged the existence of certain patriarchates. This was the first millennium. In the course of the second millennium the situation was very different. And when we come to today it is still more different.

In what sense?

Husar: In the course of the second millennium, several patriarchates were established within the Orthodox Church and within the Catholic Church. In the Orthodox Church, Moscow, and more recently Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian and other patriarchates. They have been established not by an ecumenical council, but by a "mother church" which acknowledged their existence. There was no ecumenical council in the Orthodox Church in the second millennium. There is a desire to have one, but it has not materialized.

In the Catholic Church, taking the position of the Bishop of Rome, Vatican Council II has said that patriarchates—within the Catholic Church, within the Eastern tradition, the Byzantine tradition, but not exclusively (because there is, for example, the Syro-Malabar Church of India, which is not Byzantine)—should be established.

Who can establish them? Classically, the ecumenical council. But should we wait for an ecumenical council to be called before a patriarchate can be recognized or erected? Ideally speaking, maybe so. But life goes on, and we don’t know when the next ecumenical council will take place.

This ecumenical council, Vatican II, said: “Let there be patriarchates established.” If there is an ecumenical council, it would be competent to do this. But if there is not an ecumenical council, and there is need to establish a patriarchate, let the Pope do it himself, with the mandate of the Vatican Council, since he is the responsible person within the Catholic Church to do such things. It is not something that he is ascribing to himself, as if he was an absolute ruler. He is acting within the Church as the one who is responsible, who can do it within the Catholic framework of thinking, not only on the basis of his own desire or will, but having behind him the mandate of the ecumenical council.

This mandate of the ecumenical council has been repeated in the Code of Canon Law. The Pope himself, in his very recent apostolic exhortation on the ministry of bishops speaks again: “Patriarchates should be established.” He says this because he is interested in doing what the ecumenical council has desired and established. So it is not, as some people may think, an act of human fancy. No; he is working within the framework of the life of churches within which he himself is a very important part.

Yes, the first five great patriarchates were established by the ecumenical councils. But many other existing patriarchates were not.

There is maybe one more aspect to this question. I feel that too much is being made of the question of establishing a patriarchate, as if this were something exceptional. To my mind, a patriarchate is a normal form of existence in the Eastern Byzantine tradition. It is simply a development of Church structure. I don’t feel that it ought to be overplayed. We don’t desire it simply as a matter of prestige, or a reward for our suffering or our martyrs.

We look upon it first as a pastoral instrument, and second as an ecumenical instrument. We feel that our patriarchate can be, within our unfortunately divided Kievan Church, a very strong ecumenical instrument that would lead toward the consciousness of unity for the entire Church. That does not mean that all have to become Greek Catholics. It means that we all have to come to the original unity in which our Church was—even though it is a unity that, as it was originally, is also in communion with the successor of Saint Peter.

So the situation is a bit overplayed. We do not look upon it as something extraordinary. According to canon law and according to this latest papal document, it is simply the normal way it ought to be.

The idea of patriarchates for the Western Church has been spoken of during the Second Vatican Council. But I think that the Western Church is not ready for it. Still we should never forget that the Bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope, is the Patriarch of the West. This traditional title has never been cancelled.

On January 20, 2004, Patriarch Alexei II declared to Agence France-Press that in Ukraine “hundreds of thousands of Orthodox believers are a persecuted minority,” and claimed that there is “expansion of the Greek Catholic Church in the south and the east of Ukraine.” He argued that the majority of Ukrainians will not accept the erection of a Greek Catholic patriarchate. What is your reaction?

It is quite tragic that last year, too, that Patriarch Alexei did not recognize the fact that in 1946 the Ukrainian Catholic Church was abolished by the Soviet State—with the help of the Russian Orthodox Church. I suppose that it is difficult for you to talk to someone who, thirteen years after the fall of the Soviet Union, still does not recognize the tragedy of your Church. How is it possible to have a dialogue with Moscow in these conditions?

Husar: The situation is very complex. Let us clarify it step by step. In the 18th and 19th centuries (and unfortunately it remained in the 20th century), it was said that you could not be a true Ukrainian, you could not be a true Russian, unless you were Orthodox confessionally. And this logic can be inverted, to say that a true Orthodox believer is Russian or Ukrainian or Greek or Serbian or somebody else. That means an identification of faith and nationality, as if these two concepts were integrally and maybe ontologically connected.

Our existence is a denial of this, in the sense that we are Ukrainians, we are Christians, we are of the Eastern tradition, and we also are in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome. That means that being in this communion does not make us less Ukrainian, less Christian, or less Orthodox in the sense of the Byzantine tradition. This has always been unthinkable for the Patriarchate of Moscow and for many other Orthodox churches. I think that is excessive; that should be overcome.

Second, we have the situation of 1946. The Soviet government, under a direct order from Stalin, liquidated our Church. I do not wish to make a general condemnation, because it is for us, who have not been directly in the Soviet system, not easy to understand. It is not easy for us now to speak from the experience of what it means to be under the Soviet system.

You were born in 1933?

Husar: Yes, but I left the Soviet Union in 1944. I didn’t live through the worst, darkest years. However, the fact is that the Russian Orthodox Church was used as an instrument in this liquidation and, unfortunately, to some extent, certainly collaborated—willingly or not willingly I do not enter into this; let God judge. I do not judge because times were very difficult.

The facts are, however, such. The Soviet government gave to the Patriarchate of Moscow a great number or churches. It was the only Church that was permitted to exist. People who wanted to go to church had to go to the Russian Orthodox Church. And many did go.

In 1989, the Soviet government permitted the Greek Catholic Church to register again. Then in 1990 and 1991, many of those communities that went over to the Russian Orthodox Church said: “Let us be what we were before, Greek Catholic.” And over 1,000 communities registered as Greek Catholic. Then there were difficulties about possession of church buildings. Some of these difficulties have remained up to today.

How many parish properties are still under discussion?

Husar: I would say that in western Ukraine there are over 300 localities that are in conflict.

With the Moscow Patriarchate?

Husar: Especially with the [Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the] Patriarchate of Kiev and the [Ukrainian] Autocephalous [Orthodox] Church. There is no direct conflict with Moscow in the Lviv region. I would say that there are about 25 localities where conflicts are pretty strong.

Can we speak about a religious war?

Husar: Absolutely not! I think that to speak about persecutions is very unjust. However, I can understand the Russian Orthodox Church. They were here for 45 years. And when the opportunity came, people went away from them. That means a real pastoral failure. These people have not remained Orthodox. It is a wound for the Russian Orthodox Church, which is very difficult to heal.

But is there any hope for mutual reconciliation?

Husar: For our part, my immediate predecessor, Cardinal Myroslav Lubachivsky, proposed to the Russian Orthodox Church that we forgive one another. Our people, even if they have suffered much, even if many of them don’t like the word “Orthodox,” have no real hatred against the Russian Orthodox.

I myself was celebrating in a locality in which on the same Sunday Metropolitan Vladimir Sabodan (the head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church) was consecrating a new Orthodox church. There was absolutely no opposition from the Greek Catholics. The people said: “They built it, let them have it.”

The conflicts come when there is a church that was ours but is not ours any more. The government has given such a church to the Orthodox of the Patriarchate of Moscow, or the Patriarchate of Kiev and let them keep it. So our attitude is not the desire to fight, to take vengeance.

I can say very freely that our basic attitude is to gladly be friends with Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox. There is real hope. There is a declaration of the Patriarchate of Moscow that has not been sufficiently appreciated. The Patriarch of Moscow, speaking to Christians of the Russian tradition in Western Europe, has admitted that the Patriarchate of Moscow during Soviet times did not conduct itself in an exemplary manner but gave in to the government.

When did he say that?

Husar: Last year he wrote a letter to émigré Russians who want to establish a Russian metropolitanate in Western Europe dependent on the Patriarchate of Moscow. I think that it is a very interesting thing that he and those around him have realized that things have not always been very good. To me this is a good sign. There is a recognition that in the past, because of human weakness, there has been incorrect conduct which ought to be corrected.

So I do not lose hope that sooner or later the Moscow Patriarchate will realize that nobody is perfect. That paves the road for mutual understanding, for a Christian attitude toward one another.

Do you address the same words of mutual forgiveness of Cardinal Lubachivsky to Patriarch Alexei and to the Russian Church today?

Husar: Yes, absolutely. We are always ready—even if they have never wished for it, at least up to today—for this act of mutual forgiveness.

I can understand that the believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church might suppose that, because you are now in Kiev, you might demand some churches that are vitally connected to the Orthodox tradition, like the Kievan Monastery of the Caves, the monastery of Pochaiv, and other churches. They might fear this because the Ukrainian Catholic Church is so popular, and because you have a national presence, and use Ukrainian as your liturgical language. What kind of guarantees can you give to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church? What are your criteria for saying that a particular piece of property does not belong to you?

Husar: There are certain churches, certain sanctuaries, which are national goods, which belong to Ukraine. Our position is this: Somebody has to take care of them. The Greek Catholic Church absolutely does not plan to take over the Monastery of the Caves or the Pochaiv monastery. Let the Moscow Patriarchate take care of that. But it is not their property. They are the caretakers of national sanctuaries. These are not sanctuaries that belong to them to the exclusion of others.

Why can we not come there? We cannot buy candles in the Monastery of the Caves. Why are we excluded? We have no pretence to say that it has to be ours. Since they are there, we accept this fact. But let the government not permit the Moscow Patriarchate to privatize these places and say: This is our property. Because it is the property of the Ukrainian nation, of which they are guardians, and should work in such a way as to let us and others come to visit and appreciate their spiritual goods.

But a Greek Catholic can freely pray today in the Caves of Kiev?

Husar: Yes—if he is not recognized. But I cannot go into the store and buy candles in the monastery. I will be asked: Are you Greek Catholic? And then they will not sell.

Let’s speak of the international dialogue about the Greek Catholic Church. At Balamund (1993) the meeting of the joint Catholic-Orthodox commission—to which the Greek Catholic Church was not invited—reached a complicated conclusion. On one hand the Balamund meeting condemned "Uniatism" understood as a form of "proselytism." On the other hand the meeting recognized the existence of the Greek Catholic Church. What is your position concerning this resolution? How do you see the future, since the international discussion between Orthodox and Catholic theologians was broken off at the Baltimore meeting in 2000?

Husar: If we take "Uniatism" as the classical way of trying to re-establish unity, we also do not accept it. We were tricked into it. It was not the intention of our bishops at the end of the 16th century. But this was the political situation within the Polish kingdom of that time. And it was also the theological understanding of the Latin Church after the Council of Trent.

But that is the past. We would not like to have Uniatism used any more as a way of establishing unity. However, we are a fact, and our existence cannot be denied. Patriarch Bartholomew, in his letter to the Pope, says that he (the Pope) ought to do everything to diminish the Greek Catholic Church. What right does he have to say this? We are here. We have made this choice.

If I were today faced with the situation of 400 years ago, I would certainly not choose the way that was chosen at that time. Metropolitan Sheptytsky, my predecessor in 1942 said very explicitly in letters to the Orthodox: This is not the way that we would like to conduct ourselves today. So he has in this sense condemned this way; again we would not use it today.

We are children of that past, for which we are not responsible. But we are what we are. And one cannot tell us: Disappear! Become Latin or convert to the Orthodox confession!

We wish to be Orthodox in the sense of being of this tradition. We have not always been very faithful to it. I think we have lost something on the way, which we have to regain. But we also wish to remain in communion with the Pope of Rome as the successor of Saint Peter, as the symbol of unity. We hope and we wish that all churches would be in this communion. And we consider, even if it is not through our own merit, that we could be a good example of what it means to be Catholic in the sense of being in communion with the successor of Peter and not losing in any way our religious or national identity.

But the Orthodox are saying that you were latinized in the 18th and 19th centuries. What are the guarantees in the 21st century that you will not lose your freedom?

Husar: It is true that we have been latinized. And this is the great merit of what Metropolitan Sheptytsky did at the beginning of the 20th century; he tried to reverse this process. Personally, I consider myself a follower of Metropolitan Sheptytsky, together with many others who would like to get rid of all that has illegally entered into our spiritual, theological, liturgical, and canonical heritage.

We were told: If you want to be a real Catholic, you have to be Latin. And they pushed us into it. It is only with Metropolitan Sheptytsky that we could say: Dear brothers from Rome, one can be Catholic without being Latin. And we were attacked on two fronts, Catholic-Latin and Orthodox-Byzantine. We said: No, dear brothers, one can be Ukrainian, one can be Byzantine, one can be at the same time Catholic. These different elements do not contradict one another. This is why neither the Latin Church nor the Orthodox Church is very happy with us.

What are the conditions for establishing 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?

Husar: 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 clause are theological concepts, not articles of faith.

The Orthodox 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 the sacraments. The same thing is true 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 potential for scandal—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 if you are in need, we are open to help you.

[AUTHOR ID] Antoine Arjakovsky, a French journalist, is currently on the faculty of the Ukrainian Catholic University. This interview, which was conducted in English, has appeared in a French translation in France Catholique.