The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and Its Communion with the Bishop of Rome: Nurturing Its Ecumenical Engagement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I welcome the fact that an article on this important topic is to be published in this volume. However, according to my opinion, the submitted article needs revision in its present form. It differs from a thorough academic analysis of a certain topic for a peer-reviewed journal and seems to be more like a conference text supplemented with footnotes.

The text provides a solid general overview on the presented topic, but does not offer much in-depth or critical insights, although there are several discussed aspects of the ecumenical role of Ukrainian churches and the UGCC, as publications show.

• My response: The article was seriously revised and supplemented with solid academic literature on the topic, references with explanations have been added as well.

 

The ecumenical concept of the UGCK is cited frequently, although it is primarily a programmatic document and only partially suitable as a source for historical facts. It is only contextualized on p. 6, but it is not said that there have been published already two versions of this document, from 2016 and 2021 and the article does not offer the reader help to find more about the differences between the two versions. The quoted article in footnote 16 seems to refer only to the first document, furthermore, page numbers are missing there. However, the 2 versions have been analysed and compared, especially by Dietmar Schon. There is probably only one commentary by him in German languages based on the newer version of the document (in the book“ Nicht Konkurrenten, sondern Brüder ...“ edited by him, pp. 32-102), but I would expect from a scholar to take this into account at least by considering the conclusions. Generelly, the service to readers with further reading is quite limited and not always the most representative or best publications are mentioned.

• My response:: Dietmar Schon's article was offered for consideration, nevertheless I have critical remarks on some of the author's approaches to interpreting ecumenical processes as global (for example, he presents the Havana declaration between Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill as a great progress in the ecumenical movement, but in the opinion of many authors, this meeting is rather a manifestation of a political and diplomatic approach to ecumenism that does not actually lead to a real and sincere dialogue) and contextual (for some reason, the author uses the approach developed by the Catholic Church during the Second Vatican Council in criticizing the unifying events of the 17th century).
• Also two more articles has been proposed for consideration (from the Orthodox and Greek-Catholic perspectives on the UGCC Ecumenical Position)

 

Some details: I don't understand why the UGCC is added to the title at the end, even though the article is primarily about this Church. The use of the term “successor of Peter” is more typical for the aim of spreading confessional views than of academia. Why does the author not use instead of such a title more suitable terms like Bishop of Rome, Pope or Roman Pontiff? Not to mention that historically the use of a “succession” is also problematic in view of the late evidence of a Roman monepiscopate.

• My response: The title of the paper has been changed.
• The term “successor of Peter” was substituted with more suitable terms proposed by the reviewer.

 

On page 1 the loss of “universal unity of the Churches” is associated with 1054 which is historically questionable. On page 2, the term “self-governing churches” should be replaced by the correct term „Church sui iuris“. On page 3, “peaceful existence” in ecumenical relations seems questionable in view of the rivalries between the UOC-KP and the UOC-MP. On p. 5, mentioning the letter of Major Archbishop Lubomyr Husar, the ecumenically controversial question of models of double or regional Communio could be considered, at

least by referring to literature.

• My response: The note regarding 1054 was added and explained.
• The term sui iuris was added to the text.
• Despite misunderstanding and some local crashed between the UOC-KP and the UOC-MP the level of peaceful coexistence for quite high according to the Razumkov Center polls.
• His Beatitude Lubomyr (Husar), in his Pastoral Letter One People of God in the Land on the Hills of Kyiv in 2004 doesn’t mention the topic of double or regional Communio, otherwise I will supply it with the literature. He mentioned it in some other letters, but I did not want to go into details. There are too much literature on every UGCC leaders now.

 

If on p. 9 it is said that the UGCC makes op of 10%, why are no size ratios given for other churches and confessions in Ukraine (see p. 4)? The Razumkov-Centre, for example, publishes every year statistics on this.

• My response: The statistics from the Razumkov Center for added.

 

The statement on p. 9 that the UGCC “tries to build its patriarchal structure” indicates a lack of knowledge of canon law and does not seem thought through to me. How does the UGCC´s structure as a major archiepiscopal church differs from that of a patriarchal church?

- My response: My explanation was added to the text and footnotes, together with the literature on the topic. For the Easter Christian Patriarchates signifies much more than for Latin Christians and its theology.

 

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This submission explores an important topic of relationship between the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) and the Successor of Peter. However, it relies largely on UGCC documents while neglecting critical engagement with scholarly literature on Eastern Catholic Churches/uniatism, more generally. This over-reliance limits the depth and academic rigor of the discussion as the broader historical, theological and ecumenical issues surrounding uniatism remain largely unexamined. Furthermore, the limited number of proper footnotes undermines the credibility of the work. To strengthen the submission, the author must incorporate peer-reviewed academic sources, offering a balanced and critical perspective on Eastern Catholic Churches and on the ideology of “Ruskij mir”, and address issues with citation and language for improved scholarly integrity. A few specific issues are mentioned below:

Lines 276-277 have to be updated: the captive priests have already been released. 

Line 306: "Russian World" and "Holy Rus'" are not synonymous. The expression "Holy Rus'" should be deleted from this sentence.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language requires editing to ensure clarity and coherence. Footnotes should be translated into English.

Author Response

This submission explores an important topic of relationship between the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) and the Successor of Peter. However, it relies largely on UGCC documents while neglecting critical engagement with scholarly literature on Eastern Catholic Churches/uniatism, more generally. This over-reliance limits the depth and academic rigor of the discussion as the broader historical, theological and ecumenical issues surrounding uniatism remain largely unexamined.

• My response: Critical literature on Uniatism was added

 

Furthermore, the limited number of proper footnotes undermines the credibility of the work. To strengthen the submission, the author must incorporate peer-reviewed academic sources, offering a balanced and critical perspective on Eastern Catholic Churches and on the ideology of “Ruskij mir”, and address issues with citation and language for improved scholarly integrity. A few specific issues are mentioned below:

• My response: The article was seriously revised and supplemented with solid academic literature on the topic, references with explanations have been added as well.

 

Lines 276-277 have to be updated: the captive priests have already been released. 

• My response: Updated!

 

Line 306: "Russian World" and "Holy Rus'" are not synonymous. The expression "Holy Rus'" should be deleted from this sentence.

• My response: The difference between "Russian World" and "Holy Rus" was explained in the footnote. The article to deepen the issue was supplemented.

 

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In their abstract, the Authors define the major issues to be addressed in the text. They are the following:

-          briefly examine how the UGCC developed communion with the successor of Peter and how communion with the Apostolic See was a blessing for our Church, but at the same time sometimes became a threat to its existence in times of persecution by totalitarian regimes.

-          present the current religious context in which  the UGCC operates, analyze some of its most important ecumenical initiatives, and examine its participation in the development of interfaith dialogue in Ukraine.

 

-          consider the challenges that Russian military aggression has brought to the UGCC and other religions in Ukraine, and how the UGCC, by developing communion with Rome, manages to witness the Gospel of life in the difficult circumstances of war and death.

The text clearly and mostly persuasively addresses all these issues. My major problem with the text is that it is indeed a "report," as stated in the abstract, or "statement," or "opinion," not a scholarly article. 

My suggestions for both the Editors and Authors would be as follows:

If we perceive the text as a "report" (as the Authors themselves describe it), it can be published without any significant changes and/or amendments.

If we perceive the text as a "scholarly article", the text must be considerably revised and improved. Engagement with existing secondary literature (theological, historical, sociological), the use of primary sources, definition of the theoretical and methodological framework are all necessary revisions to be made in this case. 

Author Response

In their abstract, the Authors define the major issues to be addressed in the text. They are the following:

-          briefly examine how the UGCC developed communion with the successor of Peter and how communion with the Apostolic See was a blessing for our Church, but at the same time sometimes became a threat to its existence in times of persecution by totalitarian regimes.

-          present the current religious context in which  the UGCC operates, analyze some of its most important ecumenical initiatives, and examine its participation in the development of interfaith dialogue in Ukraine.

 -          consider the challenges that Russian military aggression has brought to the UGCC and other religions in Ukraine, and how the UGCC, by developing communion with Rome, manages to witness the Gospel of life in the difficult circumstances of war and death.

The text clearly and mostly persuasively addresses all these issues. My major problem with the text is that it is indeed a "report," as stated in the abstract, or "statement," or "opinion," not a scholarly article. 

My suggestions for both the Editors and Authors would be as follows:

If we perceive the text as a "report" (as the Authors themselves describe it), it can be published without any significant changes and/or amendments.

If we perceive the text as a "scholarly article", the text must be considerably revised and improved. Engagement with existing secondary literature (theological, historical, sociological), the use of primary sources, definition of the theoretical and methodological framework are all necessary revisions to be made in this case. 

 

• My response: The article was seriously revised and supplemented with solid academic literature on the topic, references with explanations have been added as well. The title of the paper has been changed.

 

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

n/a

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I've been pleased to read the revised version of the paper. The authors considerably reworked the original article, placing it within the existing literature and making more nuanced and concrete arguments and observations. 

I might not fully agree with their ambition to cover such a lengthy period and so many issues (from the UGCC establishment to the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war) in one article. However, this might be my prejudice as a Historian, and it should not preclude the article from publication.