The Synodality of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church After Vatican II: A Need of the Faithful and Challenge for the Roman Curia

Abstract

The Second Vatican Council and its Decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum played a significant role in the life of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Vatican II became a moment of unity as all the Ukrainian Greek Catholic bishops, including the newly released from exile Josyf Slipyj, gathered in Rome. The bishops had the unique opportunity to form a synod of bishops of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. This synod would help to unite the UGCC faithful scattered around the world into one ecclesial structure and preserve their Eastern Catholic identity in the diaspora. The laity, theologians, and most bishops were in favor of convening the UGCC synod of bishops. However, many challenges arose after the council, as the Vatican Curia did not allow the Ukrainian bishops to form a synod. The decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum brought a new perspective to the understanding of the Eastern Catholic Churches and their ecclesiology. The decree was actively used in UGCC discussions to support the convocation of a UGCC synod. Unfortunately, the Vatican did not confirm the legal character of the document, and its canonical power with respect to the UGCC synod was questioned. This paper will analyze the discussions and argumentation of the Ukrainian patriarchal lay movement, theologian Victor Pospishil, bishops, the Roman Curia, and their role in the convocation of the UGCC synod in 1980.

1. Introduction

The last week of March of 1980 brought to the world the dramatic news about the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador on 24 March. Simultaneously, on a rainy Monday morning of 24 March, fifteen Ukrainian Greek Catholic bishops gather together for a Divine Liturgy in the Sistine Chapel. Pope John Paul II was the main celebrant and the one who called these Ukrainian bishops from around the world to Rome for an official UGCC Synod. After the Gospel, he preached in Ukrainian and spoke about the See of Peter and unity. His sermon also referred to some of the documents promulgated at the Second Vatican Council. The choice of theme was not random, as it summarized the 15-year-long struggle of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church to convene its bishops in a synod legally. That was not the first time these bishops gathered together for a common meeting, but this was the first time that the Vatican recognized it as a legal synod.

This event, which occurred 45 years ago in Rome, marks the culmination of discussions, negotiations, and sometimes conflicting ideas between the Vatican and the UGCC’s bishops in diaspora, theologians, and laity that had been ongoing since Vatican II. This article aims to illustrate the path taken by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic bishops from an episcopal conference they organized before the Council to the official UGCC Synod convoked by the Pope in 1980. First, it will present a history of bishops’ gatherings before and during the Second Vatican Council. We will examine the structure of these gatherings and their legal status. Next, the ideas on the synod of bishops in the Eastern Catholic Churches, as outlined in the decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum, will be briefly discussed. The following section of the article will focus on the post-council discussions on the synod of the UGCC bishops that took place within the UGCC in the diaspora and involved bishops, theologians, and the laity. First, it will present the ideas and activities of Josyf Slipyj regarding the Synod of Bishops, along with supporting and opposing views from other UGCC bishops. Then, theological reflections on the UGCC Synod and its legal status will be discussed based on the writings of canonist Victor Pospishil. The perspective of the laity on the Synod of Bishops will be represented by the ideas of the patriarchal lay movement that developed after Vatican II and actively promoted the patriarchate for the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. The description of the Vatican’s and Pope Paul VI’s position on this issue, as well as the role of Pope John Paul II in convoking the synod in 1980, will be woven into these three perspectives.

2. Episcopal Meetings Before Vatican II1

Since the time of the Early Church (Acts 15), gatherings of leaders from diverse communities to discuss the challenges of the present and plan for the future have been an integral part of the Church’s life. Metropolitan of Lviv Andrey Sheptytsky also recognized this need, as he organized two gatherings of Byzantine Greek Catholic bishops in Lviv in 1927 and Rome in 1929. These meetings gathered bishops not only from Galicia eparchies but also from Canada, the USA, Bulgaria, Uzhhorod, Prešov (now Slovakia), and Križevci (now Croatia). These conferences played an essential part in the formation of the gathering of bishops to unify the rite, liturgical practices, and church discipline of the Greek Catholic eparchies scattered around the world (The Development of Synodality in the Ukrainian Catholic Church 1985, pp. 9–13).

The Second World War tremendously influenced the life of the Eastern Catholics in Ukraine as the Soviet government persecuted the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and drove it underground after the so-called “Lviv Sobor” in 1946, and all the bishops were arrested (Bociurkiw 1996, pp. 167–78). The Church structures in Canada and the USA (established at the beginning of the century), as well as in South America and Europe, became the only places where the Church and its traditions could be preserved after the war. Therefore, when Ukrainian Catholic migrants from the displaced people’s camps in Germany relocated to various parts of the world at the end of the 1940s, ecclesiastical entities were also established in Brazil, Australia, Argentina, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany. These structures were founded by Rome, directly subordinate to the Roman Curia, and were not interconnected.

Metropolitan Maxim Hermaniuk from Winnipeg took the first step in uniting Ukrainian bishops and invited all Ukrainian Canadian bishops to a conference. It took place on 11–12 October 1951 in Ottawa (Motiuk 2005, p. 82). Bishops discussed various inter-exarchial ways of cooperation, including synod, seminary, and press. Therefore, this meeting might be seen as the beginning of the formation of the Ukrainian Bishops’ Conference. The next gathering was of the Canadian and US bishops for the Ukrainians on 25 October 1954 in Washington, DC. It was decided that this first common meeting would not discuss some significant problems but would be limited to discussions on the uniformity of the regulations of Lenten and forbidden times. Not all bishops accepted the invitation. Bishop Ambrose Senyshyn from Stamford, CT, decided not to attend this meeting. I emphasize this moment because later, bishop Senyshyn would also, for some time, refuse to participate in the meetings of the Ukrainian bishops during the Second Vatican Council.

The next stage in the development of the Ukrainian Bishops’ gatherings was the establishment of a Conference of the Ukrainian Episcopate of the Free World, which was founded on 12 February 1957 in Winnipeg, Manitoba. In general, this conference was convened five times before Vatican II, scilicet every year. In 1960, the Ukrainian Bishops approved the “Statutes of the Ukrainian Catholic Conference,” which had been prepared by Metropolitan Maxim Hermaniuk and described the purpose and aims of the conference. Articles two and four of those statutes specifically emphasized that the conference exists to protect the tradition, rite, and unity of the UGCC bishops in the diaspora, and it is not equivalent to a synod; therefore, it does not have the canonical force of law (Motiuk 2005, pp. 83–87). As we can see, the conference did not possess juridical power.

Typically, the conference convocations lasted only a short time, around three days, and were connected to other Church events or celebrations. Such a short duration evidently makes it difficult for a conference to engage in fruitful work. Bishop Andrej Sapelak (from Argentina) noted that the work of the Ukrainian Bishops’ Conference was not particularly active; however, it provided them with the opportunity to represent the Ukrainian Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council rather than merely being a ritual addition to its locally dispersed episcopate (Sapelak 1967, p. 57).

3. Episcopal Meetings During the Council

The Second Vatican Council provided a valuable opportunity for the Ukrainian bishops to gather together for more than three days and to foster closer cooperation. During each session of the Council, the Ukrainian Bishops’ Conference met every Thursday (Hermaniuk Diaries 2012). Metropolitan Maxim Hermaniuk was the one who most actively promoted the idea of bishops’ collegiality among the Ukrainian bishops. In the first year, only the Ukrainian bishops of the Diaspora were present at these meetings. Sometimes, they were joined by the Melkite Catholic Bishops.

In 1963, Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj joined the meetings after his liberation from exile in Siberia. The return of Metropolitan brought new life to the development of the Ukrainian Bishops’ Conference. Following this, during the second, third, and fourth sessions of the Second Vatican Council, three convocations of the Archiepiscopal Synods, as they were named by Slipyj, took place in Rome. (Motiuk 2005, p. 88) However, there were some canonical difficulties in convening those synods. Before the council, Metropolitan Hermaniuk had been the head of the conference. In 1963, he handed over this governing power to Metropolitan Slipyj, whose title of Major Archbishop was confirmed. The latter, being a strong-willed person who sought to unite his church and its bishops, decided to alter the conference’s purpose and develop it into a Synod of the bishops. (Hermaniuk Diaries 2012, p. 123) In Slipyj’s opinion, the Synod of Bishops is an integral part of the Eastern Church’s existence. Thus, the change in name from conference to synod was not a formal action but a step towards the creation of a Ukrainian patriarchate and the establishment of the Ukrainian Church as an Eastern Church sui iuris. Yet, at the same time, it was not canonically justified in the Vatican’s view. (Tataryn 2013, pp. 85–86)

During the Council, the work of the Bishops’ Conference was a necessary but complicated process. Not all bishops were adherents to its development. Metropolitan Maxim Hermaniuk wrote in his diary of the Council’s first session that the Basilian bishops (they belonged to the Order of St. Basil the Great), Ambrose Senyshyn (USA), and Jose Martenetz (Brazil) were opposed to certain questions regarding a common pastoral letter to the Ukrainian faithful (Hermaniuk Diaries 2012, pp. 78, 85). This counterposition of the Basilian bishops was not a unique case. One year later, Metropolitan Hermaniuk mentioned in his diary a conversation with Metropolitan Slipyj about “The politics of the Basilian Fathers against our Bishops Conference” (Hermaniuk Diaries 2012, p. 143).

In 1964, during the Second Archiepiscopal Synod, Metropolitan Maxim Hermaniuk presented a project for the creation of the Lviv-Halych Patriarchate to the Ukrainian bishops. At that time, the Basilian bishops did not attend the meetings and continued to oppose the establishment of a Ukrainian Catholic Church patriarchate. Moreover, they critiqued the person of Metropolitan Slipyj. According to Metropolitan Hermaniuk, Metropolitan Ambrose Senyshyn from Philadelphia was “the main instigator of this division” (Hermaniuk Diaries 2012, p. 184).

It is essential to identify the reasons behind these divisions. The Basilian monastic Order had a different perspective on the Ukrainian Church’s structures and hierarchy. At the same time, Metropolitan Hermaniuk attempted to determine the reason behind Senyshyn’s actions. He suggested that the Metropolitan from the United States became “a victim of some sort of political, pro-Russian agitation” (Hermaniuk Diaries 2012, p. 220). Jaroslav Skira, a researcher and translator of Metropolitan Hermaniuk’s diary, considers that these conflicts and instabilities may have three inner reasons. These are “a lack of a clear system of governance, differing visions of ecclesiology and personal conflict” (Skira 2011, pp. 322–40, 338–39).

Therefore, we can see that the Ukrainian bishops were not united, and some of them accepted only the authority of Rome rather than uniting with others and accepting the authority and power of the Major Archbishop. That is why the work of the Ukrainian Bishops’ conference faced internal obstacles caused by misunderstandings among the bishops, which were also influenced by external factors.

4. Orientalium Ecclesiarum on the Synod of Bishops

The decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches was promulgated on 21 November 1964. This document was prepared and written by the Commission for the Oriental Churches. It consists of 30 paragraphs, organized into eight parts. Unfortunately, this document does not have a separate part dedicated to the Synod of Bishops in the Eastern Catholic Churches. However, some of the paragraphs can provide insight into how it views synods in the lives of Eastern Churches.

Orientalium Ecclesiarum 9 talks about the synods in connection to the patriarchs: “The patriarchs with their synods are the highest authority for all business of the patriarchate, including the right of establishing new eparchies and of nominating bishops of their rite within the territorial bounds of the patriarchate, without prejudice to the inalienable right of the Roman Pontiff to intervene in individual cases.” The same connection synods have to Major Archbishops—according to OE 10. Therefore, we can see that the synod holds the highest authority in the Church and assists the head of the Church in caring for and developing the Church in all its needs.

The decree does not mention anything about the establishment of a synod in Churches that do not have one. It only mentions the possibility of establishing new patriarchates in OE 11: “Seeing that the patriarchal office in the Eastern Church is a traditional form of government, the Sacred Ecumenical Council ardently desires that new patriarchates should be erected where there is need, to be established either by an ecumenical council or by the Roman Pontiff.” We may presume that this statement can be applied to the synods.

Already in the 1960s, when Orientalium Ecclesiarum was promulgated, many of the Eastern Catholic Churches had their exarchates, eparchies, or even metropolias established outside their territorial boundaries. According to the decree OE 7, bishops who were appointed to those ecclesiastical entities still belonged to the hierarchy of the Mother Church: “Wherever a hierarch of any rite is appointed outside the territorial bounds of the patriarchate, he remains attached to the hierarchy of the patriarchate of that rite, in accordance with canon law.” The challenge was that the canon law for the Eastern Churches was promulgated by the Vatican only in the 1990s, and the decree itself did not have legal power.

If we combine the ideas of Orientalium Ecclesiarum 7, 9, 10, and 11, then we can presume that the Ukrainian Catholic Major Archbishop, who has the same rights as Eastern Catholic patriarchs, can convoke a synod of bishops who belong to his hierarchy (even if they are appointed outside territorium proprium) and this synod has authority and juridical power to help Major Archbishop in governing the Church. This interpretation of the decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches will be further explored in the subsequent sections of the article.

5. The Positions and Activities of the Ukrainian Bishops in Diaspora on the Question of UGCC Synod

The activities and theological ideas of Cardinal and Major Archbishop Josyf Slipyj play an essential role in the question of the synod of the Ukrainian bishops. In Slipyj’s opinion, the Ukrainian Bishops’ Conference and its powers were insufficient for the Ukrainian Church to develop and grow. Therefore, he sought permission to convoke a Synod of the Ukrainian Church after Vatican II, as performed by the other Eastern Catholic Churches.2 The Ukrainian bishops had a pre-synodal meeting in December 1966 and decided to have a synod in 1967. After that, Cardinal Slipyj communicated this decision to Pope Paul VI and the Prefect of the Eastern Congregation, Cardinal Testa, with a request to allow the convocation of the synod. (Mykola Marksteiner-Mishchenko 2018, p. 266) This request for the transition from the conference to a synod was based on articles nine and ten of the decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum. Cardinal Testa responded that it is impossible to convoke a synod and that the conference of the Catholic Bishops of the Ukrainian Rite is the only legitimate gathering. Some changes could be made to its statutes, but only by the Holy See.3 Slipyj attempted to persuade Pope Paul VI that the Ukrainian bishops required a synod to unify their Church and preserve it, and the right to, based on OE nine and ten. He received a response from the Secretary of State Cardinal Cicognani that “a detailed examination of the issue showed that the convening of such a synod creates considerable difficulties of a legal nature, […] connected primarily with the interpretation of Art. 10 of the Council Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches.”4 (Mykola Marksteiner-Mishchenko 2018, p. 270) Therefore, the unity and synodality of the Ukrainian bishops here depended on the interpretation of the decree by the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of the Decrees of the Second Vatican Council.

However, Slipyj did not wait for the interpretation (Mykola Marksteiner-Mishchenko 2018, p. 271). In July 1969, he sent a letter to all the Ukrainian bishops with a tentative plan for a possible synod in September. The Ukrainian bishops in Canada responded actively to this call and held a pre-synodal conference at the beginning of September 1969. Bishop Isidore Borecky from Toronto asked Metropolitan Hermaniuk to organize a commission to develop a constitution for the Ukrainian Church, similar to the constitutions of other Eastern Churches, which should then be discussed by all eparchies.5 The Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Bishops took place in Rome from 29 September to 4 October 1969. Slipyj sent its decisions (which included 21 articles) to the Prefect of the Eastern Congregation, Cardinal de Furstenberg.6 The Prefect responded to Cardinal Slipyj that he had no right to convoke a synod, which would have legislative powers because he was not on his canonical territory of Ukraine, and there were no bishops who would be under his jurisdiction. The cardinal also stated that the mentioned gathering was a free meeting of bishops. He underlined that such a synod could be called only with a special mandate issued by the Holy Father. However, de Furstenberg mentioned that the new canon law for the Eastern Catholic Churches would introduce some changes that would make synodal gatherings possible.7

Following this reaction from Cardinal de Furstenberg, Slipyj sent a response, arguing, based on Orientalium Ecclesiarum 7, 9, and 10, that he had the right to convoke a synod. He underlined that “the decree is binding not on the basis of the future Eastern Code, but on the basis of the Code of the Decree.”8 This position of Slipyj indicates that he viewed the decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum as the law for the Eastern Catholic Churches. In another letter to de Furstenberg, he stressed that “The basis of the future development of our Church can be only the conciliar decree De Ecclesiis orientalibus catholicis, and the Union of Brest, as the rules of law. […] If Your Eminence wants to deny it, you may do it, but you will have to take on the responsibility regarding the possibility of a schism or at least of great confusion”9 (Babiak 2005, p. 112). His response demonstrates his willingness to accept OE’s imperative to establish patriarchates where necessary (OE 11) and that his jurisdiction extended to the rite rather than being limited to a specific territory (cf. OE 7).

In the following years, the Ukrainian Bishops from Canada and South America were in favor of convening a synod or conference of Ukrainian bishops. The Canadians invited Slipyj to Canada and planned the synod for the Summer of 1971 in Winnipeg.10 But Slipyj was not allowed by Rome to attend. Bishops Sapelak and Martenetz (from Argentina and Brazil, respectively) hoped for a meeting but rather as a reorganized conference of the Ukrainian bishops. They proposed to conduct it in Rome in the second half of September 1971. Both groups of bishops saw the need to meet and discuss the urgent needs: the future synod of bishops in Rome, the permanent synod of the Ukrainian bishops, the election of a successor for Slipyj, and the liturgical and pastoral activities of the Ukrainian bishops in the places of their service, which should be discussed collegially. The difference was that the Canadians supported Slipyj and viewed the gatherings as a synod, whereas South American bishops regarded the meetings as a conference and adhered to the Vatican’s position.11

Bishop Ivan Prashko from Australia also stressed that it should be a synod. He emphasized that there was no need for conferences when the bishops could hold a synod, which, under the leadership of the major archbishop, is a traditional type of episcopal gathering for the Eastern Churches. Prashko stressed that Vatican II, in the decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum 5, “solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of their venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the character of their faithful and more suited to the promotion of the good of souls.”12 Therefore, by imposing conferences on the Ukrainian bishops, the Eastern Congregation was not following the OE’s decisions regarding the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Bishop Avhustyn Horniak, OSBM, from Great Britain, did not support Slipyj’s idea of unifying the Ukrainian Catholic eparchies and exarchates in the patriarchate. In his letter to Metropolitan Senyshyn, with whom he was a friend, he mentioned that “The life of our individual Churches on all continents of the world, although they undeniably form one ritual and more or less ethnic unity, known as the Ukrainian Catholic Church, is so diverse that it would be difficult to formalize them into one jurisdictional unit.”13 He also did not see the reason for the convocation of the synod of Ukrainian bishops, as the existing legal order, organized and headed by the pope, was the right one for the coexistence of all Ukrainian Catholic bishops with one another and with the Vatican. “If the Holy See changes the existing legal order to some other—a new one, then we will have to adhere to that new legal order, and for now, we must follow the existing legal order (See Note 13)” As you can see, Bishop Horniak favored Roman ecclesiology concerning the UGCC’s status as a conference of bishops.

Metropolitan Senyshyn from Philadelphia did not participate in the episcopal gathering that wanted to be recognized as a synod in Rome in 1969. In his letters to Vatican officials, he opposed Slipyj’s jurisdiction over all Ukrainian Bishops and did not support the synod. In Bishop Ivan Prashko’s opinion, Senyshyn was the primary reason for the separations and disagreements in the conferences before the council and after the return of Slipyj. Also, Senyshyn gave duplicitous reasons for not attending the synod in 1969. He was convinced that if Senyshyn cooperated with the other Ukrainian bishops, there would be fewer difficulties and challenges in the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church.¹⁴ In 1975, Slipyj wrote a critical letter to Senyshyn regarding his ignoring the synod’s decision to issue joint Christmas and Easter pastoral messages by publishing his own. He also mentioned that three other bishops did not obey or recognize the synod.15

Even though Senyshyn participated in the 1971 meeting of the Ukrainian bishops, he continued to be opposed to the idea that they were synods. In 1973, he complained to the Secretary of the Eastern Congregation, Archbishop Mario Brini, that

…for ten years already the Ukrainian Catholic Episcopal Conference is lacking a president. Cardinal Slipyj has assumed control of everything. At the proposal of His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, Cardinal Slipyj refused to be the permanent president of an Episcopal Conference but rather took matters into his own hands to convene so-called “synods” and prepared a Constitution for the Ukrainian Catholic Church without the agreement and approval of the Apostolic See. Because of this state of affairs chaos has reigned as well as the unfounded criticism aimed at the Apostolic See from the part of some of the Ukrainian Catholic Bishops.16

This letter reiterates Senyshyn’s position regarding the Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Bishops. He, unlike Slipyj, Hermaniuk, and the majority of other Ukrainian bishops, did not view the synod as an essential component of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church’s existence and did not consider the decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum to be its basis.

Slipyj and those bishops who supported him in the struggle for the Ukrainian Synod gathered together for the meetings despite prohibitions from the Vatican. Until 1975, they continued to refer to their gatherings, which took place in 1971, 1973, and 1975, as Archepiscopal Synods. They also attempted to establish a permanent synod, which consisted of a few bishops who represented the Synod and served as an advisory group to the head of the Church. This permanent synod met twice, in June 1972 and February 1973. Further opposition from the Vatican compelled Ukrainians to rename their gatherings from the synod to meetings of the Episcopate of the UGCC. They gathered in this format three times in 1976, 1978, and 1979 (The Development of Synodality in the Ukrainian Catholic Church 1985, pp. 21–25).

However, Rome’s position changed significantly in 1980, when Polish cardinal Karol Wojtyła became Pope John Paul II. After years of prohibitions, in response to the Ukrainian bishops’ request, he wrote a letter to Cardinal and Major Archbishop Josyf Slipyj, announcing his support for a synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Bishops and allowing Slipyj to convoke synods in the future. The Pope wrote the following:

The major archbishop, ‘at the will of the supreme pontiff’, will be able to convoke other synods, either to handle business or to propose candidates for the episcopate. He will proceed as follows:

-

For each individual synod, a request to be able to hold it will be submitted to the pope, together with a disclosure of the questions to be considered.

-

Having obtained authorization, the major archbishop will call a synod of all the Ukrainian bishops.

-

The declaration of 25 March 1970, regarding aggregatus will be applied to such synods.17

(Ukrainian Vatican Synod 1980)

This move of Pope John Paul II was a recognition of the rights of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and its bishops to be united under the leadership of the major archbishop in a synod. It also confirmed the lawfulness of the synodal assemblies of the Ukrainian bishops. Nevertheless, restrictions were placed on the major archbishop and synod, as the convocation of a synod and its agenda required the approval of Rome.

6. Victor Pospishil and His Perspective on the UGCC Synod of Bishops

The question of the synod of the Ukrainian Catholic bishops was related to the question of the jurisdiction of Major Archbishop Josyf Slipyj. The letters of Cardinal de Furstenberg in 1969–1970, mentioned in the previous part, stressed that Slipyj had no right to gather bishops into a synod, as he was in Rome and did not have jurisdiction outside his archeparchy in Ukraine. This prohibition became a reason to search for arguments in favor of the rights of a major archbishop of Lviv to convoke a synod and his jurisdiction over other Ukrainian bishops and faithful worldwide.

Prominent theologian and canon lawyer Victor Pospishil,18 who served as a priest in the Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Philadelphia since the 1950s and advised UGCC bishops on canonical questions not only in the US but also in other eparchies, wrote extensively about the question of the UGCC’s synodality. He saw the achievement of the jurisdiction of the major archbishop over all the Ukrainian Catholics worldwide as the first step in the process of achieving the patriarchate. He saw it as the only way, according to the existing law.

The Pope and the S. Congregation may be wrong in their position, but they certainly possess—in the Catholic system of church government—the legal power to do so, and their declarations possess the character of law. However, if we are able to demonstrate that the law itself as it was established by the same Holy See desires that the Ukrainian Catholic Church enjoy autonomy as do other Eastern Churches, than we can expect that the reluctance of Rome to grant it will appear in its proper characteristic.

(Pospishil 1971, p. 8)

Pospishil’s attitude was very rational and canonical.

To better understand the argument, I will briefly present the canonical situation surrounding the Major Archbishop of Lviv. According to the declaration issued by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches on 23 December 1963, the Metropolitan of Lviv, Josyf Slipyj, was regarded as a major archbishop (as of canons 324–339 of Cleri Sanctitati) (Acta Apostolica Sedis 1964, p. 214). This move was not an elevation but a recognition of the previously existing character of the metropolitan and its ecclesial structures. (Pospishil 1971, pp. 9–10) When Orientalium Ecclesiarum 10 equalized in rights patriarchs and major archbishops,19 it gave a reason to think that the jurisdiction of the major archbishops was the same as the Eastern Patriarchs. But OE 7 and its footnote 9 led to Cleri Sanctitati 216, which stated that the Eastern Patriarchs did not have jurisdiction over the faithful of their rite outside of their canonical territory (Pospishil 1971, pp. 10–11; Pospishil 1965, pp. 26–28). Pospishil criticized these limitations and presented examples of giving jurisdiction to a bishop outside his territory or on the territory of another bishop in the Orthodox Churches in the past. He stressed that the rule of territoriality had been abandoned by some autocephalous Orthodox Churches, but the Roman Catholic Church continued to prohibit Eastern Patriarchs from exercising their jurisdiction over their faithful. Simultaneously, the Latin Church continued to expand its activity in the historically Eastern territories20 (Pospishil 1971, pp. 11–12).

Pospishil wrote that even the decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum 10 did not qualify as enacted law but rather suggested future legislation where Ukrainian bishops might be able to have a synod (according to OE 7, 9, 10), (Pospishil 2021, p. 276), which would include all the bishops.21 However, that synod would not be able to appoint bishops outside the canonical territory, as the pope appointed them. Therefore, Pospishil did not understand the position of Cardinal de Furstenberg and the Roman Curia, who did not recognize the gatherings of the Ukrainian bishops as synods in 196922 (Pospishil 1971, pp. 13–14, 18).

Here, it is important to mention another document issued by the Vatican—the Declaration Apostolica Sedes, which was issued on 25 March 1970. It stated that the Eastern bishops outside of the territory of their patriarchates could participate in the patriarchal synods, and candidates for the episcopacy could be selected by the pope out of three candidates proposed by a patriarch and the synod (Pospishil 1971, p. 15). Unfortunately, those norms were not confirmed for the Ukrainian bishops, as Cardinal de Furstenberg wrote in his letter from 10 April 1970,23 that the Ukrainian bishops could not have synods but only conferences (Pospishil 1971, p. 16).

In search of a solution, Pospishil provided another example that supported the convocation of the synod and the major archbishop’s jurisdiction. When the Decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum was promulgated, Josyf Slipyj issued a declaration stating that the decree would officially take effect on 7 April 1965. In the Roman Catholic Church, the date on which the OE officially took effect was 22 January 1965. The question of the date was significant as, according to it, article 18 of OE and the new marriage form had to take effect, as was mentioned in the third chapter. Due to the difference in dates, the Congregation clarified that for the Ruthenians in the USA, the date is based on the one given by Rome, and for Ukrainians—according to Slipyj’s declaration. Pospishil underlined that this decision declared that Ruthenian eparchies were not under the jurisdiction of the major archbishop of the Ukrainians, but the Ukrainians—were (Pospishil 1971, p. 17). This, in his opinion, set a precedent for the Vatican’s recognition of the jurisdiction of the major archbishop over the Ukrainian eparchies worldwide. Unfortunately, the Roman Curia did not consider this example in its subsequent decisions regarding the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian major archbishop and his synod. Pospishil wrote:

There is hardly any recorded instance known in the history of the Eastern Catholic Churches that an assembly of bishops was treated in this manner in front of a startled faithful as these Ukrainian bishops. What they had so solemnly legislated went down the drain together with their resolution to request the Holy Father graciously to erect an Ukrainian patriarchate. They were simply informed that the Ukrainian Catholic Archiepiscopate had not been established in the manner of the Oriental patriarchal churches as Art. 10 of Orientalium Ecclesiarum had envisioned.

(Pospishil 1971, p. 19)

Pospishil expressed his disappointment with the Vatican’s decision to prohibit the gathering of Ukrainian bishops in a synod. He stressed that some decisions of the synod could be rejected, but the Roman Curia could approve the Ukrainian bishops’ ability to hold a synod (Pospishil 1971, pp. 20–21).

He mentioned five reasons that could be behind the Vatican’s prohibition to convoke the synod: (1) The Eastern Congregation opposed it. It was actively used by the Ukrainian media, but the theologian did not think that it was the main reason. (2) The rapprochement between the Vatican and communist Moscow. Pospishil presumed that the Soviets would see any rights or privileges given to the Ukrainian Church as an act of enmity. (3) The new Ecumenism. In his opinion, the Vatican saw the Eastern Catholic Churches as obstacles to the ecumenical dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches, and it would be better if they would disappear.24 (4) Opposition of some Ukrainian Bishops. Pospishil mentioned that none of the Ukrainian bishops made public or official statements against the synod or the patriarchate. Only Metropolitan Senyshyn was absent and did not sign the petition alongside the other bishops.25 Additionally, Slipyj’s strong character may have been one of the reasons why some bishops were reluctant to follow his lead as patriarch. (5) Absence of the right motivation. The theologian stressed that the political motifs were stronger than ecclesiastical ones among the laity. For those immigrants who were more politically oriented, the patriarchate would serve as a surrogate for the independent Ukrainian state. However, he mentioned that the strong bond between the church and state was one of the characteristics of the Eastern Churches. The request to establish an autonomous Church can also be justified by the previous unjust activities of the Roman Curia and Latin bishops concerning Ukrainian Catholics in the USA (Pospishil 1971, pp. 26–29). All these reasons had ecclesiological, social, and political character.

Pospishil’s analysis of the possibility of convoking a synod of Ukrainian bishops provides a deeper canonical and theological perspective on the situation. This theologian supported the idea of a synod of Ukrainian bishops but also recognized the numerous canonical stumbling blocks. Interpretation of the articles in the decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum was another, as the Vatican authorities did not view it as law but rather as advisory to the existing law of Cleri Sanctitati. Pospishil’s interpretation agreed with the canonical impossibility of receiving a patriarchate, but according to him, the decree confirmed the right of the Ukrainian bishops to gather as a synod in accordance with the ancient traditions of the Eastern Churches.

7. Patriarchal Lay Movement and Its Perspective on the UGCC Synod

This movement began its development at the end of Vatican II. The dispersion of Ukrainian Catholic emigrants around the world after World War II, the persecution of the Church in the Soviet Union, and the need to preserve their identity were among the main factors that influenced the creation of this lay movement. Therefore, the Ukrainian Greek Catholics in the diaspora, especially in the United States, began to develop and engage in various theological and social discussions, activities, and occasionally conflicts, in which they sought to argue in favor of the establishment of a Ukrainian Patriarchate (Babynskyi 2020). After the council, they established a broad network, which later evolved into a world organization. The laity, who belonged to the movement, felt empowered by the council’s call to be active and began to develop their own strategy for preserving a distinct Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

The question of the synod of the Ukrainian bishops was one of the aspects that the patriarchal laity viewed as integral to the governance of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. After the Second Vatican Council ended, they expected their bishops to gather together and resolve the challenges their Church was facing at that time.26 The Ukrainian laity, who participated in the patriarchal movement, did not view the Ukrainian eparchies as separate entities but rather as a unity within one particular Ukrainian Church. The national factor played its role in this, as Ukrainian ethnicity was one of the unifying factors.

The laity of the patriarchal movement also saw the meetings of the Ukrainian bishops during the sessions of the Second Vatican Council as synods (Kuzyk 1990). Their decisions, for example, on the liturgical changes proclaimed in the pastoral letters during the Council, were considered the law and obligatory for all Ukrainian eparchies in the free world. However, these gatherings officially had the status of the bishops’ conference in the eyes of the Roman Curia. Therefore, when the Vatican began to prohibit gatherings of the Ukrainian bishops after the council, as their synodal status had not been approved, the laity actively protested these actions.

As mentioned above, the Ukrainian bishops gathered in Rome in September 1969 for a meeting, which they referred to as a synod, and the Prefect of the Eastern Congregation responded that the synod was invalid, and it could not be a valid conference either, as it was convoked not in accordance with the statutes.27 This position of the Vatican received a very negative reaction from the patriarchal movement. They emphasized that the Ukrainian Church could not afford to wait for several decades and required immediate changes.28 The patriarchal laity took umbrage with Cardinal de Furstenberg’s letter to Josyf Slipyj and picketed in Philadelphia during a major celebration at the Ukrainian cathedral in December 1969.

It was the celebration of the 10th anniversary of the Ukrainian Metropolia in Philadelphia, PA. The laity protested Metropolitan Senyshyn’s behavior, including his failure to attend the synod in September 1969, his decisions not to support their struggle for the patriarchate, his refusal to recognize Slipyj’s jurisdiction, and his allegiance to the Roman Curia and the Eastern Congregation29 (Sorokowsky 2009, p. 37). Protesters carried slogans against Senyshyn and de Furstenberg. The last one received a hostile reception from the laity because of his letter to Cardinal Slipyj, in which he emphasized that Slipyj had no authority to convene a synod of the UGCC and make decisions for his church outside his canonical territory in Ukraine.30

A similar reaction among the laity occurred in 1976 when Cardinal Phillippe, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, sent a letter to all the Ukrainian bishops in which he reminded the bishops about the prohibition on gathering as a synod without the pope’s permission (Babiak 2005, pp. 136–37). The activists of the patriarchal movement in the USA criticized the Ukrainian bishops for their silence and saw them as obedient to the Vatican administrators.31

The further meetings of the Ukrainian bishops were called synodal consultations to avoid conflicts (Monchak 2016). In 1976, the Vatican also did not permit Slipyj to attend the Eucharistic Congress in the USA. The laity of the patriarchal movement presumed that it was performed to avoid the possibility of all the Ukrainian bishops meeting as a synod. The reaction of the patriarchal activists was immediate and, in some moments, radical.32 For example, the following headline of a leaflet called Ukrainian Catholics to give their blood to the Red Cross as a symbolical way to protest the prohibition for Slipyj to attend the Eucharistic congress in Philadelphia: “Our Homeland is lost! We are losing our Church! Now we are ready to give our blood!”33

Another moment connected with the UGCC’s synod and the question of primacy was the appointment of new bishops for the Ukrainian eparchies in the diaspora. The first event was the consecration of two auxiliary bishops, John Stock and Basil Losten, for the Metropolia of Philadelphia in May 1971 (Fedorowich 1971). The second event was the appointment of three new bishops (two for Canada and one for Europe) that happened in 1974. These appointments were much needed by the Church, but the patriarchal movement protested the way in which they were performed. In their opinion, the Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, with Slipyj as its head, had the right to choose new bishops, and this right was confirmed by the decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum nine and ten as well as by the documents of the Union of Brest.34 Here, again, we can see that the patriarchal movement interpreted the decree in a way that conflicted with Rome.

According to the motu proprio Cleri Sanctitati 392 (2), “Bishops are freely appointed by the Roman Pontiff, or if lawfully elected, confirmed by him.” The Vatican did not view the gathering of Ukrainian bishops as a synod, so it continued to appoint bishops for the Ukrainian eparchies without confirmation from the Ukrainian bishops, instead appointing them solely according to the pope’s discretion. For the laity, the gatherings of the Ukrainian bishops had Eastern synodal legitimacy, and they expected that they would gather and appoint new bishops. Therefore, patriarchal activists wrote to the Ukrainian bishops and Vatican authorities requesting that they either recall the nominations or confirm them with Josyf Slipyj.35

The patriarchal movement viewed the unity of all Ukrainian bishops gathered together as a synod, functioning according to Eastern Christian norms and the decisions of the Second Vatican Council. They perceived the actions of Vatican officials as hostile when they prevented formal episcopal gatherings or refused to recognize them as synods. In their opinion, the Vatican did not follow the decisions or the spirit of the council (Rezoliutsii 1967). Further complicating the situation was that these laypeople were not always guided by religious or theological considerations in their activities. Often, people who were voices of the movement were driven by political reasons and the need for national unity in the diaspora. However, some of them saw themselves as missionaries who had to share the news about the particularity of the Ukrainian Church, its synod, and its patriarchate.36

8. Conclusions

When you know your rights and stand up for the truth, even if it takes years, you achieve justice. With these words, I wanted to summarize the 15 years of struggle by Ukrainian bishops and laity for the Vatican to allow the convening of the Synod of the UGCC. Obstacles to achieving this goal included misunderstandings among the Ukrainian bishops themselves, differing approaches to interpreting the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches by the Vatican and the UGCC, as well as outdated canon law.

The path taken by the bishops, some theologians, and laity in their attempt to prove the right of Josyf Slipy to convene the Synod was difficult, and each group pursued this goal in its own way. The Major Archbishop and Cardinal Josyf Slipyj, together with the Ukrainian bishops (with the exception of a few), defended their rights in the Vatican Curia, wrote numerous appeals and letters, and made a concerted effort to maintain unity among themselves, despite the distance and dispersion around the world. Theologian and canonist Victor Pospishil developed theological and canonical justifications for the right of Ukrainian bishops to meet as a synod. The laity, in turn, through their sensus fidelium, reminded the Roman Curia in various ways, sometimes radical, of the rights of the UGCC.

The position of the Vatican and Pope Paul VI regarding the right of Josyf Slipy to convene the Synod of the UGCC was based on the Roman Catholic vision of the relationship between the Pope and his bishops, as well as the canonical norms established before the Second Vatican Council. All Ukrainian eparchies and metropolias in the diaspora were created by the Vatican. Each of them was considered a separate unit not connected to the other. Similarly, the Pope maintained contact with the Roman Catholic dioceses worldwide. Even the name “Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy” indicated that it was viewed as an ethnic diocese rather than part of a distinct Eastern Catholic Church. Josyf Slipy, as Archbishop of Lviv, was outside his canonical territory, not by his own will, but due to the Soviet Union’s occupation of Ukraine. However, this fact was one of the main arguments used to prohibit convening the Synod.

Therefore, the efforts of Ukrainian Greek Catholics in the diaspora to achieve recognition of their bishops’ meetings as legal synods posed a challenge for the Vatican on both a canonical and ecclesiological level. However, time, the persistence of Josyf Slipyj, and changes in the Vatican contributed to the fact that Pope John Paul II convened the Synod of the UGCC bishops in March 1980, recognized the previous meetings of the bishops, and allowed future meetings of the Synod of the UGCC. These meetings still had many limitations, but this synod marked a major breakthrough in uniting the scattered eparchies of the UGCC around the world and in having the Vatican perceive them as a single Church sui iuris rather than separate, independent eparchies.