R. J. Grigaitis

I watched the movie  The Shoes of the Fisherman around twelve years ago, and from what I remember, I thoroughly enjoyed it. After learning more about the Eastern Churches and, in particular, the person whom the lead character of this movie is based on, I decided I would have a better appreciation for the story, so I bought the book. It was a well written book, but now that I’ve finished it, I feel that my time would have been better spent reading something more inspirational.

Like many, I saw this story as being prophetic of the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. The book came out in 1963 and the movie came out in 1968. Ten years after the movie came out, Karol Wojtyla became the first Slavic pope, as well as the first one to come from a Communist nation, both of which occur in The Shoes of the Fisherman. Even the names of Pope John Paul II and the protagonist of The Shoes of the Fisherman are similar: Karol and Kiril.

As I said many see the connection between this movie and the pontificate of Pope John Paul II; however, very few people seem to know the actual inspiration for The Shoes of the Fisherman: Major Archbishop Josyf Slipyj.

Josyf Slipyj was the Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Byzantine (Greek) Catholic Church between 1944 and 1984. A major archbishop has basically the same jurisdiction and autonomy as a patriarch without the actual title of patriarch. Technically, this title didn’t exist until 1963 when Pope Paul VI created this new office instead of establishing Archbishop Slipyj’s see as a patriarchate. Before 1963, Archbishop Slipyj had the same duties, but not as much authority and autonomy.

Such authority and autonomy allowed him to consecrate three bishops without approval of the pope. This annoyed some of the Roman Curia since such ordinations are illicit in Roman canon law (this is why those three bishops of the Pius X Society were excommunicated), but not in Eastern canon law. One of these bishops was Lubomyr Husar, who now holds the office that Major Archbishop Slipyj held.

The KGB offered to make Josyf Slipyj the patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church if only he broke union with Rome. He refused, so they put him in a Siberian concentration camp for almost 18 years. In 1960, Blessed Pope John XXIII created him a Cardinal in pectore, and three years later succeeded in bringing him to Rome.

This real story is much more interesting and inspiring than The Shoes of the Fisherman. My favourite part of the movie is when Pope Kiril sneaks out of the Vatican and comes across a dying man in a Jewish community of Rome. When the man dies, Kiril begins chanting a Jewish lament in Hebrew. I don’t know if Josyf Slipyj would have done this, but I do know that his predecessor, Servant of God Metropolitan Andrey Sheptysky, used to preach to the Jews in Hebrew. Unfortunately my favourite part of the movie, the chanting in Hebrew, is not in the book.

Instead of reading The Shoes of the Fisherman, I would have much rather read a biography of Josyf Slipyj or of Andrey Sheptysky. This is a plea to all Ukrainian historians that have a command of the English language: please write a biography about Major Archbishop Josyf Slipyj and one about Metropolitan Andrey Sheptysky.

Fr. Thomas J. Loya’s  interview with Right Rev. Dr. Andriy Chirovsky on the November 12, 2006 broadcast of Light of the East has really captured my imagination. So much so, that I bought the books Pray for God’s Wisdom: The Mystical Sophiology of Metropolitan Andrey Sheptystky by Fr. Chirovsky and Christian social Ethics in Ukraine: The Legacy of Andrei Sheptytsky by Andrii Krawchuk from the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies at Saint Paul University.

I particularly enjoy the little story about Fr. Chirovsky and his grandmother praying for Archbishop Slipyj.

Fr. Thomas J. Loya answered a letter of mine on the May 17, 2009 broadcast of Light of the East. I asked him what the Byzantine Church’s position is on the debate of the predestination of the Incarnation.

Listen to the answer here:
http://blog.grigaitis.net/files/predestinationOfTheIncarnation.mp3

Listen to the entire show here:
http://www.byzantinecatholic.com/radio.htm

I knew they had there own Code of Canon Law, but I didn’t know these specifics:

Q: Many Catholics don’t know that Eastern Churches have their own Code of Canon Law. What sort of differences are there between the two codes?

Vere: Many of the individual canons are similar, or in some cases even the same, but there are some significant differences. For example, for a marriage to be valid under the Eastern code, the couple must receive the blessing of the priest. This excludes deacons from presiding over marriages except in an emergency. On the other hand, nothing in the Latin code stops the deacon from acting as a qualified witness.

Another key difference, which again concerns marriage, is that a godparent cannot marry a godchild in the East. So a fiancée could not sponsor a non-Catholic fiancée into the Church under the Eastern Code, whereas there is no such prohibition in the West. There are also a few structural differences — the Latin Code is divided into seven books, whereas the Eastern Code is divided into 30 titles. And, of course, the terminology often differs between the two codes to account for the different spiritual patrimonies.

That being said, the most profound difference, in my opinion, is the treatment of our Eastern Catholic Churches. Notice I said “Churches” and not “Rites.” To me this denotes a profound shift in ecclesiology, that is, the Church’s theology of what it is to be a Church. This is important because how one understands the Church as an entity will affect how one interprets the Church’s law.

The Latin Code, promulgated in 1983, still treated our Eastern Catholic brethren as members of rites. In other words, Eastern Catholics were seen as an extension of the Latin Catholic Church, but with slightly different liturgies and customs, and in some parts of the world, their own hierarchy.

By using the expression “Churches sui iuris” in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO), that is to say Churches of their own authority, the 1990 Eastern code recognized that Eastern Catholics belonged to their own Churches, each with its own distinctive spiritual patrimony, that exist in full communion with Rome and the Latin Church. Together, these Churches make up the universal Church.

And in the end, this is why Michael and I felt it important to include a chapter about the CCEO in “Surprised by Canon Law Volume II.” Although our spiritual patrimonies may differ somewhat between Churches “sui iuris,” we exist in full communion with each other, sharing the same mission, which is the salvation and sanctification of souls.

You can read the rest here:
http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-23587