The Quest for Unity and Autonomy: The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in the Diaspora

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

            The author clearly defined his/her purpose: to study the “internal UGCC dynamics, specifically the bishops' attitudes towards synods and their involvement or opposition to the concept,” or more specifically “the tension surrounding the UGCC's synodal autonomy.”

               The author then documents the conferences held in Philadelphia, U.S., in 1958, Rome in 1959, Munich, Germany, in 1960, and Winnipeg, Canada, in 1962.  The internal UGCC dynamics changed after the return of Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj from Soviet prisons. Things changed radically again after Pope Paul VI's negative response to the patriarchate issue in 1971 and the direct prohibition against the UGCC head convening synods. UGCC meetings were held in 1976, 1978, and 1979, but they were designated as episcopal consultations, not synods. Throughout this study, the author points to “differences of opinions,” namely, “not all bishops shared an equal enthusiasm for the concept of a supra-eparchial body.” The conclusion repeats these findings.

While this study is well documented, I have a problem about its significance. What is the point, in the conclusion written in 2025, to repeat internal disagreements between bishops two generations ago? What happened between 1980, date of the first Ukrainian Synod, and 2025? What happened to the internal dynamic of the UGCC in the following synods? What important Synods took place between 1980 and 2025? Today, the Ukrainian diaspora in the US and Canada has greatly declined, while the Soviet invasion of Ukraine has created a new diaspora in neighboring countries. What is the attitude of the UGCC and the Ukrainian bishops in response to the needs of this new diaspora? I feel the authors should bring us up to date, not just leave us in 1980.

               I have also a problem with the introduction. In 1980 John Paul II created a synod of all Ukrainian bishops, in a letter to archbishop Josyf Slipyj, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC). This is what most bishops hoped for, minus the creation of a patriarchate. A dispute around at the first ordinary Synod whether their meeting should be called extraordinary or “the first ordinary” synod. The answer was: “first ordinary synod.” Is this the answer the bishops expected? Why or why not?  “This seemingly procedural detail held profound significance for the synod's participants.” The author should explain what significance is involved – besides “differences of opinions” — now that a Ukrainian Synod had been created by the pope.

               This is a fine piece of research, but it needs to be more than historiography.

Author Response

  I have also a problem with the introduction. In 1980 John Paul II created a synod of all Ukrainian bishops, in a letter to archbishop Josyf Slipyj, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC). This is what most bishops hoped for, minus the creation of a patriarchate. A dispute around at the first ordinary Synod whether their meeting should be called extraordinary or “the first ordinary” synod. The answer was: “first ordinary synod.” Is this the answer the bishops expected? Why or why not?  “This seemingly procedural detail held profound significance for the synod's participants.” The author should explain what significance is involved – besides “differences of opinions” — now that a Ukrainian Synod had been created by the pope.

This is a great point, and I have revised the introduction to clarify the significance of the 'first ordinary synod' designation for the participants, taking into account the differing perspectives within the episcopate regarding synodal governance.

While this study is well documented, I have a problem about its significance. What is the point, in the conclusion written in 2025, to repeat internal disagreements between bishops two generations ago? What happened between 1980, date of the first Ukrainian Synod, and 2025? What happened to the internal dynamic of the UGCC in the following synods? What important Synods took place between 1980 and 2025? 

I have added several paragraphs detailing the significant developments within the UGCC following the 1980 synod. These additions illustrate how the synodal structures, established in the 1980s, played a crucial role in preparing the Church for the dramatic changes of the 1990s, particularly the revival of ecclesiastical structures in post-Soviet Ukraine. I have also supplemented the conclusion with the significance for the present.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a sound historical analysis based on the available sources regarding the challenge of synodal autonomy of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) struggle in the post WW II context with "historical, political, and theological tensions". It is true that the situation "highlights the inherent difficulty of reconciling universal Church structures with the unique needs of diasporic communities, where religious and national identities are intertwined."

On line 557 a period seems to be missing complicating the understanding after the words "of the Russian Orthodox Church". You might want to add a reference to the "Ostpolitik" of the Vatican. Now it is not quite clear if that quite a big point is taken from Sorokowski 2009.

The paper analyzes a historical questions, but this historical dilemmas have importance also from the point of view of current discussions. The article would have been even more interesting if you would have shortly reflected in the end how the attitude towards synodality might have changed in the current atmosphere where there is such a lively discussion and official process around "synodality". Not only the decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum but also the whole Second Vatican Council has been interpreted in various ways. 

It would likewise have been interesting to read some reflections about the fact that in spite of the historical Orthodox, synodal tradition in the background, the Greek Catholic Church was at first more pleased with the autonomy which the Roman central administration had given to every diocese, and some of the bishops didn't like the idea of having more collegiality with other diaspora bishops.

Another interesting question is how the use of the title "patriarch" was argued to be an equivalent of "cardinal" without being an official patriarchate recognised by other churches. It is clear that it was one way to calm the laity which didn't want to lose their autonomy to the direct guidance from Rome or from the regular Roman Catholic dioceses and bishops locally and regionally. This is also an ecumenically relevant question when the bishop of Rome again carries also the title "patriarch of the West". 

Author Response

On line 557 a period seems to be missing complicating the understanding after the words "of the Russian Orthodox Church". You might want to add a reference to the "Ostpolitik" of the Vatican. Now it is not quite clear if that quite a big point is taken from Sorokowski 2009.

I corrected the sentence and added a reference to the literature on the "Ostpolitik".

It would likewise have been interesting to read some reflections about the fact that in spite of the historical Orthodox, synodal tradition in the background, the Greek Catholic Church was at first more pleased with the autonomy which the Roman central administration had given to every diocese, and some of the bishops didn't like the idea of having more collegiality with other diaspora bishops.

This is explained in footnote 8.

Another interesting question is how the use of the title "patriarch" was argued to be an equivalent of "cardinal" without being an official patriarchate recognised by other churches. It is clear that it was one way to calm the laity which didn't want to lose their autonomy to the direct guidance from Rome or from the regular Roman Catholic dioceses and bishops locally and regionally. This is also an ecumenically relevant question when the bishop of Rome again carries also the title "patriarch of the West". 

The reviewer raises an intriguing question regarding the perceived equivalence between the titles 'patriarch' and 'cardinal,' particularly in the context of Slipyj's usage. It is crucial to clarify that no formal equation was established between these titles. Slipyj's dual usage of 'patriarch' and 'cardinal' after 1975 reflected his position within two distinct ecclesiological frameworks.

The title 'cardinal,' an honorific within the Latin Church, holds limited significance within Eastern ecclesiastical structures. It does not confer additional jurisdictional powers within a particular Eastern church, but rather denotes a position of honor within the broader Roman Catholic context. Conversely, the title 'patriarch' or 'major archbishop' signifies suprametropolitan authority and designates the holder as the head of a Church sui iuris.

Contemporary UGCC discourse, as evidenced by the controversies of the period, demonstrates a clear understanding of the distinct nature and implications of these titles. They were not perceived as equivalent, but rather as reflective of Slipyj's dual role within the universal Church and his specific leadership of the UGCC. I have added also the paragraph concerning "patriarch of the West" in Conclusion.