It won't affect the Vatican's concordat with said state, though.
Why should it?
A man who insists on meeting with fascists before visiting their victims isn't going to be moved by different fascists arresting a colleague he pointedly ignored.
[Update: The Cardinal has been released on bail.
The Vatican is "following with extreme attention."
To be fair, "follower" is a apt description of Rome's attitude toward China and its depredations.]
...but the Consecration last Friday hit all the right notes. It reminded me of the pope's pandemic prayer service in St. Peter's back in 2020: the "this is fitting" vibes were present.
Let's keep praying for peace as the skies darken.
The most recent one demanded regime change for a nuclear-armed power we are not at war with.
Not saying the quiet part out loud is one of the commandments of effective diplomacy.
Ah, well. I'm sure it'll be fine.
And it's not like we weren't warned that such things could happen.
Ms. Baturina is a billionaire, and depending upon the source, either the richest or second-richest woman in Russia.
Unlike many,many other oligarchs, she has not been the subject of sanctions by the Administration for Putin's War.
Pay no attention to the passed envelope in 2014.
Nor to the 2010 Wikileaks material.
For, as everyone knows, the road to wealth in Putin's Russia comes straight through the pages of a modern-day Horatio Alger tale. [Anyone who says the same about the contemporary United States gets the coveted Whataboutism Nonpublished Lazy Comment of the Moment Award.]
Consecration of Russia and Ukraine on the Feast of the Annunciation.
Can't ask for better than that.
Video of the statue of Our Lady arriving in Lviv here.
Lviv was just hit with four missiles today, not so by the way. So far, no one appears to have been killed, but the importance of the city to Ukraine and Ukrainian Catholicism cannot be overstated.
In a teleconference with Putin's House Chaplain, the pontiff declared the just war tradition dead.
At one time we also spoke in our churches of holy war or just war. Today we cannot speak like that. The Christian conscience has developed on the importance of peace.
If you can think of a worse argument to pose to an Orthodox Patriarch than the chap in Rome bragging about how effortlessly-superior he is to the Tradition he is supposed to guard, let me know.
I've got nothing.
But it was (genuinely) good of him to mention the poor Russian soldiers who are dying. The agony of their families is something we should also keep in mind when thinking of Putin's war of aggression. That is a line of argument that might land--at least with others in Russian Orthodoxy.
Have any members of the Western political elites (broadly construed to include lesser figures like members of Congress or their European equivalents, prominent religious figures, celebrities, etc.) spoken out against the insane tide of Russophobia engulfing their nations?
As someone who loathes Putin and delivered aid to a Ukrainian Catholic parish for shipment to that besieged nation, I find this blinkered ethnic cancellation campaign beyond repulsive.
But even more so is the utter refusal of anyone in prominent political or cultural positions to call it out and to continue to do so.
If you have examples of people doing so, I would love to see them. But I suspect they come from those at the fringes of power, according to various values of the term "fringe."
The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is the largest of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Her Patriarch Sviatoslav (currently "Major Archbishop" because the title he deserves would offend Putin's House Chaplain and wreck the chance to have a meaningless papal confab with said House Chaplain) is a model of Christian resistance to tyranny and unjust war.
Not that he or the millions he leads matter a damn to Putin's Catholic Amen Corner. And it this point I have to concede that Todd is more right than I was about the depth (in every sense of the word) of apologetics for the Russian thug. While the overt support is more muted, there's a bumper crop of anti-anti-Putinism that is functionally the same thing. And it gives not a damn for the deaths of Ukrainian Catholics, to my building fury.
But then again, Easterners have never mattered much to American Catholics of the western rite. The Orthodox Catholic Church in America was birthed by Archbishop John Ireland and fellow Latin hierarchs who were appalled by the married priesthood of Easterners and their desire to maintain ethnic traditions, leading to the inevitable conversion of large numbers of Slavic Catholics to Orthodoxy.
As always, slowly and painfully, Easterners won out against Latin pig-headedness with the belated support of Rome. For example, the Latin Bishop of Mobile, Thomas Toolen, tried to ban use of the vernacular in a Melkite parish, but was thankfully overruled by John XXIII.
Lest you think Bishop Toolen was some stock southern villain from Progressive Casting, he should be remembered as a good-hearted man with a mostly-solid record when it came to African-Americans.
Still, the rote-obedience-and-uniformity-at-all-costs mindset of Latin Catholicism is one of its least attractive features and invariably harms its relationship with Catholics of the East. And it is something that needs to be remedied as soon as possible.
Divine Physician, heal all of our hearts in this time of war.
And it's as gruesomely-caesaropapist as possible:
Ukraine had to be punished because it allowed gay pride parades.
God help the people and faithful of Russia.
And Rome: make Sviatoslav a Patriarch right now. And a Cardinal, too.
[As to the latter, it's ludicrous that he is not one--and ideological. Being a young Benedict appointment is anathema to the pontiff.]
The invaluable Pillar does excellent work today examining the impact of Putin's war of aggression on the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches. The report can be found here.
As hinted at before here, there is more than one Orthodox Church in Ukraine. The largest is recognized by the Patriarch of Constantinople and those in communion with him. The other is recognized by Kirill, who heads what is easily Orthodoxy's 800 pound gorilla. The demographic and power imbalance in the patriarchates is profound, and drives the schism between them.
Which, yes, started in 2018 because the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized one Orthodox Church in Ukraine, and Kirill the other.
But the attack on Ukraine has thrown the Russian-recognized one into turmoil.
To the point where two Russian-recognized diocese have stopped recognizing the Russian Patriarch in the Divine Liturgy:
“The termination of the commemoration of the Primate of the Church, not because of doctrinal or canonical errors, or delusions, but because of discordance with certain political views and preferences, is a schism, for which anyone who commits it will answer before God, not only in the age to come, but also in the present,” Patriarch Kirill of Moscow wrote March 2 to an archbishop of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is governed by Kirill.
The statement came after Metropolitan Archbishop Evlogy of Sumy, a city in eastern Ukraine, instructed his priests Monday to discontinue prayers of communion with Kirill in the Divine Liturgy, or celebration of the Eucharist.
Schism is the refusal of submission to the authority of a legitimate religious authority, or refusal of communion, or unity, within a church body.
Evlogy’s decision is understood to be a repudiation of Kirill’s leadership. It came after the Russian Orthodox patriarch issued prayers Sunday that seemed aimed at theologically justifying Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
But the Sumy Orthodox archbishop said in a statement March 2 that directing priests to stop praying liturgically for Kirill is not an act of schism. Evlogy wrote that he remains in communion with Kyiv Metropolitan Onufriy, leader of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Kirill’s jurisdiction.
As with the various western Catholic forms of Mass, the Divine Liturgies of the East (Orthodox and Catholic) commemorate the servant of the Faithful. In the case of churches with patriarchs, it is "our Patriarch," sometimes with the prefix "our most blessed" or even "God-loving Patriarch."
So, to not recognize your servant-patriarch is a momentous decision. But one that makes sense in momentous times--like your nation being assaulted and your patriarch making justification noises for the assault.
Hence my sardonic suggestion in the title. It increasingly fits the ecclesiastical situation, sadly.
And it will only get worse as the war rages on and Ukraine continues to be ground down. Unfortunately for those who support the Russian patriarch, it seems that he has no intention of changing direction.
Which bodes ill for an internal revolt among the rest of the elites who support Putin and his offensive. They bought the ticket, and they are riding it all the way down.
It's easy to pray for Ukraine, and right to so do. But remember Russia in your prayers, too. The noble people of that land deserve better than the would-be tsar, kleptocrats and lickspittles plunging them all into ruin.
I was harsh on Patriarch Kirill a few days ago, and I wondered if I was too harsh.
I have stated in other forums that confessional apologetics need to take a sabbatical during the latest War in Europe, and I have gone that route since my post below.
I still think my rhetorical choices were a bit over the top, but quod scripsi, scripsi.
But not too harsh, as his dreadful homily last Sunday demonstrates:
And yet, one cannot deny that the Russian Patriarch is in a tight spot, as are all those who are beholden to Putin. Indeed, the reaction from Rome (which instinctively defers to the beholden Kirill) was a muted bleat until Monday, when Russia was finally condemned by the Secretary of State. And perhaps--just maybe--Kirill was and is doing something behind the scenes which reflects well upon him. Not at all improbable. Hopefully, such is happening.
In the meantime, the Moscow-recognized Orthodox hierarchy in Ukraine leapt out the gate with a condemnation of the attack and issued a call to defend the homeland.
And now they have doubled down, calling upon Kirill to intervene.
Will the man meet the hour? He has that rarest of things open to him--a second chance. He will not get a third.
The answer, as JD Flynn certainly knows and all-but-concedes in his article, is "of course not."
The reason is that the Russian Bureau for Orthodox Spirituality has been given a veto over such. It's the same reason the pontiff can't criticize the nation whose war of aggression is killing that very same flock of his.
Can't afford to make the bearded governmental functionary in the Danilov Monastery upset.
By the way, the late, great Eastern Jesuit Robert Taft (yes, from that Taft family) had some pointed words to say to both East and West during his career. Usually, it was the latter that received more attention, especially in the endless liturgy wars. However, in this magisterial essay in 2000, while he directs fire at both, he lands a heavy blow on Orthodoxy for its complicity in religious persecution under Communism. A preview:
There is no way one can fairly judge the present tense ecumenical situation between Orthodox and Eastern Catholics in the former Communist East Bloc without an objective view of the martyrdom of the Greek Catholic Churches from the end of World War II until 1989. Attempts to attenuate or deny this history merit the same contempt now given to renewed attempts to deny the Holocaust.
* * *
Only in the light of these simple facts can the oft-repeated and widely publicized present Russian Orthodox complaints about losing to the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church almost all their Churches in the region of Galicia be placed in their proper context.
In the winter of 1944-45 the Soviet regime prohibited all contact of the Ukrainian Catholic hierarchy with its clergy and faithful, and initiated a campaign of forced meetings and propaganda in favor of union with the Russian Orthodox Church. Opponents were arrested and tortured, in April 1945 the entire Greek Catholic hierarchy was imprisoned, and the Soviet regime recognized the “Initiative Group” of three Catholic priests, formed to carry out the government plan, as the sole authority over the Church, instructing them to make lists of all clergy who refused to recognize their authority. Under police protection this group carried out a feverish campaign of propaganda and threats. The NKVD pressured the unwilling clergy to sign a petition for union with Orthodoxy. Those who refused were arrested. At the end of February, thirteen Catholic priests were received into Orthodoxy in Kiev and the two celibate members of the “Initiative Group” were secretly consecrated Orthodox bishops. Their leader, Havriyil Kostel’nyk, a married priest, was elevated to the rank of mitred archpriest, the highest dignity open to the married clergy.
On March 8-10, 1946, a “synod” of 216 terrorized priests and nineteen laypersons, orchestrated in Lviv under the leadership of this group, abolished the Union of Brest (1596). This purported to be a synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church and to this day the Russian Orthodox Church has claimed it to be such and has steadfastly refused to repudiate either the synod or its own role in the charade.
But as the Russian Orthodox Church authorities are well aware, the entire Ukrainian Catholic hierarchy was in prison, and the entire presidium of the synod had in fact already become Orthodox, though this was kept secret until the farce was a fait accompli. The action was followed by massive arrests, interrogations, abuse, trials, banishment and deportations, causing incalculable suffering and death.
Russian Orthodox authorities ever since have defended what was done as a canonically legitimate synod of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church that freely and legitimately abolished of the “forced” Union of Brest, and to this day they have refused to disclaim or condemn it. The Acts of the synod were published in Ukrainian in Lviv in 1946, and in 1982 the Moscow Patriarchate issued bowdlerized (i.e., deliberately doctored) versions in Russian and English for the 45th anniversary of the shameful charade.
The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was not destroyed but driven underground, to re-emerge maimed but still vigorously alive when finally granted freedom in 1989, at which time almost the entire Russian Orthodox Church in Western Ukraine, clergy, parishes, and faithful, re-entered the Catholic Church en masse.
Similar forced reunions with the Orthodox Church took place in 1947 in Transcarpathia, 1948 in Romania, and 1950 in Slovakia.
These are the unvarnished facts. This history is important for several reasons. First, it shows the demonstrable falsity of the accusation that the Catholic Church has “reinvented” or “resurrected” a dead and gone “Uniatism,” thereby stalling the Orthodox-Catholic ecumenical dialogue. A more nuanced view, one corresponding to the historical facts, leads one to recognize the following realities. Eastern Catholics were forced into the underground in the 1940’s by one of the bitterest and most violent persecutions in Christian history.
Although this was done by Stalinist regimes there is abundant and irrefutable evidence that it had the active support and/or collaboration of at least some Orthodox hierarchs and authoritative exponents. Each case must be taken by itself, and justice demands avoiding generalization, but there can be no doubt that ambiguous figures like Patriarch Justinian Marina in Romania, and Archbishop Makarij Oksijuk in Lviv and Transcarpathia, were active participants in these historic violations of human rights.
And one of the chief Romanian Orthodox ideologues of modern times, the Orthodox priest and noted theologian Rev. Dumitru Staniloae (d. 5 Oct. 1993), gave wholehearted vocal support for this massive violation of human rights, insisting that the “reunion [of Greek Catholics with the Orthodox Church which took place in 1948] was entirely free and spontaneous." This is not only a patent lie; it is also a denial of the bitter suffering of martyrs.
Read the whole thing--absolutely essential.
By the way, Fr. Taft thought the Ukrainian Church should just present Rome with a fait accompli regarding the patriarchate:
Frankly, my advice to the Ukrainians has always been to do the same thing. Just declare the patriarchate and get on with it. Do it, of course, only if you’ve got the bishops unanimously behind it …
Do
they?
Yes, I think they do now. The danger is that if there are even two people who
say no, then Rome’s going to say that the bishops are divided and we can’t
recognize it. I told them, take two steps. First, publicly declare the
patriarchate. Second, request Roman recognition, but even if it doesn’t come,
refuse all mail that doesn’t come addressed to the patriarchate. Don’t just
pretend, but really do it. The Secretary of State sends a letter addressed to
the archbishop? We don’t have any archbishop, we’ve got a patriarch. Send it
back unopened, “addressee unknown.”
Now, fairness compels me to suggest that the current refusal to forcefully condemn Russia may have this grim history of Orthodox-facilitated oppression in mind. If Moscow still thinks it was "robbed" of Catholic faithful, there's no telling what they might be willing to bless if/when the conquest of Ukraine is complete. After all, they did it once, within living memory, and never repented of it.
But if that's the case, what kind of "dialogue partner" are you dealing with?
I recently ordered a wood carving of Our Lady of Pokrov from a Ukrainian Catholic artist on Etsy. He and his employees reside in Lviv, near Poland.
But the deluded tyrant who is attacking his homeland has made it clear that he will not settle for less than vassalization of the whole land. I told him to not worry about completing the item and use the money as he sees fit.
I pray for his safety and for all the victims of aggression in this war.
The interior of Saint Paul Melkite Greek Catholic Church, Harissa, Lebanon. I have decided to set up a Substack exploring Eastern Christi...
