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

Abstract

This article examines the complex process of establishing a unified structure for the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) within the post-World War II diaspora, focusing on the formation of the Bishops’ Conference and the concurrent pursuit of the recognition of patriarchal status. Building on earlier inter-diocesan meetings, efforts to create a coordinating body for the dispersed UGCC episcopate gained momentum in the 1950s, culminating in the establishment of the Episcopal Conference. However, these conferences progressively revealed significant internal disagreements, particularly concerning the scope of the Conference’s authority and its relationship with the Roman Curia. The release of Josyf Slipyj from Soviet imprisonment and his subsequent exile in Rome, coupled with the proclamation of the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches, dramatically altered this dynamic. Slipyj’s advocacy for ritual jurisdiction clashed with the Roman Curia’s desire for centralized control and the divergent views of individual bishops. Significantly, the growing activity of the laity, characterized by persistent demands for autonomy and patriarchal status, and fueled by disillusionment with Vatican policies, played a crucial role in shaping the UGCC’s trajectory. This analysis underscores the intricate interplay of canonical, political, and personal factors that influenced the UGCC’s attempts to forge a coherent identity and assert its rights in the post-war diaspora.

1. Introduction

In a pivotal letter dated 5 February 1980, Pope John Paul II articulated to Major Archbishop Josyf Slipyj, head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC), his intention to convene a synod comprising all Ukrainian bishops dispersed throughout the diaspora. This meeting, to be presided over by the Pope or his delegate, was tasked with nominating candidates for the coadjutor cum iure successionis to the Lviv major archbishopric. Additionally, the letter addressed the prospective conferral of extraordinary powers upon the Major Archbishop, enabling the convocation of UGCC synods ad nutum Summi Pontificis (Marksteiner-Mishchenko 2020, p. 123).

This papal intervention resolved a protracted dispute concerning the procedural legitimacy of UGCC synods. Subsequently, on 1 March 1980, the Pope formally announced the convocation of an extraordinary synod of bishops of the UGCC. This synod convened on 24 March 1980, under his direct auspices in the Vatican. Later that year, from 25 November to 2 December, an ordinary synod of the Ukrainian episcopate was held in Rome. During the initial sessions of the latter synod, a debate arose regarding its classification as either extraordinary or the “first ordinary” synod. Bishops Augustine Hornyak, Apostolic Exarch in Great Britain, and Jeronim Chimy, Bishop of New Westminster in Canada, sought papal clarification on this matter. Cardinal Władysław Rubin, Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, resolved the dispute on behalf of the Pope, affirming that “on the basis of the letter of the Holy Father to His Beatitude the Major Archbishop dated 5 November 1980, this synod was convened by His Beatitude the Major Archbishop, and it is the first ordinary synod” (Minutes of the first ordinary synod, 25 November–2 December 1980//Historical Archive of the UGCC in Rome (HA UGCC), 2, IVa, 74, p. 204).

This seemingly procedural detail held profound significance for the synod’s participants, given the longstanding divergence of opinions within the episcopate regarding the status and authority of the UGCC’s collegial body in the diaspora. Bishops who opposed the very idea of a UGCC synod as a permanent collegial body, to which they would hypothetically have to delegate some of their autonomy, understood that if this synod were no longer an extraordinary ad hoc gathering like the previous one, it would fundamentally affect the format of their relationships with the head of the UGCC and other bishops, as well as the functioning of the Church as a whole. The designation of the synod as the ‘first ordinary’ effectively meant its institutionalization and the potential limitation of the individual power of diocesan bishops in favor of conciliar decision-making.

For those bishops who had long advocated for greater synodal governance within the UGCC, rooted in their interpretation of Orientalium Ecclesiarum (OE), the term ‘ordinary synod’ implied a degree of permanence and regularity. It suggested the establishment of a standing collegial body with inherent authority to address the ongoing needs and challenges of the Church in the diaspora and, potentially, in the homeland.

The synod’s designation held profound significance for the dispersed faithful, for whom the Church served not only as a religious institution but also as a crucial unifying force in their stateless existence. However, the label “first” sparked immediate controversy, particularly from the editor of the influential lay movement’s magazine, “Патріярхат” (The Patriarchate). He argued that this naming convention effectively invalidated previous ecclesiastical gatherings, which many bishops, clergy, and faithful had considered synods and whose decisions had shaped the Church’s direction (Haliv 1981, pp. 15–16).

To understand the root of this debate, it is necessary to examine the differing interpretations of the Second Vatican Council’s Decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum within the UGCC. Equally important is the specific lens through which this decree was perceived by Ukrainian laity and priests who were forced to leave their homeland just before the council, while their fellow Ukrainians who remained on the other side of the Iron Curtain endured martyrdom and confession. This specific lens, shaped by their unique experiences, significantly influenced their interpretation of the decree’s provisions. The debate centered on a broad spectrum of historical, political, and theological-canonical issues. Specifically, the decree defined the authority of patriarchs and major archbishops, outlining their jurisdiction over bishops, clergy, and faithful within their respective territories or rites (OE, 7). Based on this, Ukrainian Catholics asserted that their head of the Church possessed the right to convene synods of bishops belonging to their rite and to address the Church’s challenges in the diaspora, with indirect implications for the Church in their homeland.

Furthermore, they interpreted the decree’s call for the re-establishment of Eastern Churches’ rights and privileges in accordance with ancient traditions and ecumenical council decrees (OE, 9) as a mandate for the UGCC to restore the autonomy it enjoyed prior to the Union of Brest in 1596. This included the Metropolitan of Kyiv-Halych’s historical authority to convene synods and appoint bishops. Conversely, both Rome and certain Ukrainian bishops prioritized the decree’s stipulation that these rights and privileges be adapted to contemporary conditions. At that juncture, the UGCC’s legal existence was confined to diaspora communities in the “Free World”, and its head was effectively in exile in Rome.

The UGCC patriarchate idea, and its associated events and projects, has been extensively researched (Baran 1961; Krajcar 1964; Luznycky 1971; Madey 1971; Lencyk 1988). Augustyn Babiak’s Legitimacy of the Ukrainian Patriarchate (Babiak 2005) provides a valuable analysis of the 20th century period. By drawing on correspondence between Josyf Slipyj and Roman Curia officials from the Historical Archives of the UGCC in Rome, Babiak elucidates the principal topics and arguments within this discourse.

The evolution of synodality within the UGCC is also well-documented in scholarly literature (Monchak 1983; Shafran 2008). Babiak (Babiak 2005) and Mishchenko (Mishchenko 2017) both utilize archival sources, with Mishchenko’s doctoral dissertation on canon law, based on previously inaccessible materials from the Historical Archives in Rome, offering a particularly significant contribution.

The reaction of the wider community to this issue remains comparatively understudied. While several authors have addressed the topic (Bilaniuk 1976; Markus 1979, 1989), their direct involvement in the events introduces a degree of polemic into their research, as they often defend particular viewpoints. Andriy Sorokowski’s “Outline of the History of the Ukrainian Patriarchal Movement” offers a more objective perspective; however, he acknowledged that insufficient time had elapsed at the time of writing to allow for a comprehensive historical evaluation (Sorokowski 2009).

Previous research has largely concentrated on the canonical dimensions of the issue, as well as the analysis of discussions between the Apostolic See of Rome and Josyf Slipyj, the head of the UGCC. Consequently, internal UGCC dynamics, specifically the bishops’ attitudes towards synods and their involvement or opposition to the concept, have received less attention. This study, employing the historical method, aims to address this imbalance. Furthermore, the processes among active laity, who played a significant role in public discourse surrounding this issue, warrant greater scholarly scrutiny. Given the unique context of this exiled community, this study will also draw upon insights from diaspora studies.

This study contends that the tension surrounding the UGCC’s synodal autonomy arose from divergent interpretations of the Second Vatican Council’s decrees, primarily within the Ukrainian episcopate itself, rather than solely between Rome and the UGCC leadership. Moreover, the laity’s attempts to influence these processes were significantly shaped by the conditions of their forced exile, extending beyond purely ecclesiastical concerns. Consequently, this article reveals the UGCC’s post-Vatican II struggle for synodal autonomy as a complex interplay of historical, political, canonical, and geopolitical factors.

2. The UGCC in Diaspora: Post-War Displacement

Following World War II, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church faced an exceptionally precarious situation. In 1946, its structures were outlawed in Ukraine after a pseudo-synod, orchestrated in Lviv under the auspices of the NKGB, the Soviet secret police. Parts of the Church were forcibly integrated into the Russian Orthodox Church, which also appropriated Greek Catholic property. The remainder continued to operate clandestinely. In 1949, the Soviet authorities also liquidated the Greek Catholic eparchy of Mukachevo (Bociurkiw 1996, pp. 102–228). Greek Catholics in Czechoslovakia and Romania experienced a similar fate. All UGCC bishops within Soviet reach were arrested, with the majority perishing in imprisonment. However, the Church persisted in diaspora communities, primarily in North and South America, where emigration had begun in the late nineteenth century and where ecclesiastical structures had gradually developed.

World War II precipitated a further wave of emigration, primarily from Western Ukrainian territories, encompassing those who had fled before the Soviet army’s advance and those who declined repatriation to the USSR following their release from forced labor in Nazi Germany. The majority of these individuals found themselves in Displaced Persons (DP) camps in Germany and Austria, where they had resided for approximately five to eight years. These DP camps, beyond fostering active political, social, and cultural life, also served as a catalyst for the revitalization of religious practices. For individuals from rural areas, religious observances had long functioned as a model for organized community life and a visible symbol of group identity (Bohachevsky-Chomiak 2018, p. 21). Furthermore, the Church, particularly for those from Galicia, held the status of a semi-political or national institution, acting as a focal point for national identity and resistance (Baran 1992, p. 153). According to Alexander Baran, the religious revival within DP camps stemmed from religion’s capacity to “recreate a spiritual presence of the lost fatherland in the psyches of the émigrés” (Baran 1992, p. 154). Consequently, it became a pivotal element in the lives of intellectuals and politicians, some of whom had previously exhibited limited engagement with religious life or even held oppositional stances. Thus, during their sojourn in DP camps, post-war Ukrainian refugees not only cultivated a well-functioning community but also established nearly 120 Greek Catholic and 80 Orthodox parishes, reflecting the fact that approximately two-thirds of the post-war wave of Ukrainian emigration were Greek-Catholics.

Following several years spent in post-war Europe, between 1948 and 1955, approximately 220,000 to 250,000 Ukrainians emigrated to North and South America, Australia, and various Western European countries, such as Great Britain, France, and Germany. Upon resettlement, they encountered established communities from previous waves of Ukrainian emigration. The well-developed religious life of these earlier emigrants facilitated the integration of the newly arrived post-war immigrants into existing parish and community networks. This influx of new emigrants significantly strengthened Greek Catholic structures in the diaspora. While pre-war exarchates existed only in the United States and Canada, the immediate post-war decades witnessed the transformation of the Canadian exarchate into a Metropolitanate of four dioceses (1957) and the United States exarchate into a Metropolitanate of three dioceses (1958). Additionally, exarchates were established in Great Britain (1957), Germany (1958), Australia (1958), France (1960), and Brazil (1962). Ukrainian Greek Catholics also received their own bishops in Argentina in 1961. As a result, the number of UGCC bishops outside Ukraine increased from three in 1939 to sixteen by the time of the Second Vatican Council.

The majority of new immigrants settled in the United States and Canada. For the most part, this expansion was successful, though localized conflicts arose, primarily concerning the use of English in parish schools and liturgical services. These conflicts stemmed from the fact that earlier waves of Ukrainian emigration were largely composed of second- or third-generation immigrants, well into the process of assimilation. This posed a significant challenge for the newcomers, who viewed their primary objective as the preservation of Ukrainian cultural heritage, which the Soviets were attempting to eradicate in the homeland.

Having been denied the natural development of their national culture, the post-war wave of Ukrainian immigrants turned to the Church, which, as mentioned above, had already played the role of a national institution before the Second World War. On the other hand, during the 1950s, this newly arrived wave of emigrants underwent an acculturation process. For the first generation of immigrants, such a process is always accompanied by rapid and profound changes, such as learning a new language and adjusting to a new social environment. In this new context, the Church became a significant stabilizing force in their lives, providing continuity amid uncertain realities.

It also served as a vital link between the immigrant community and their homeland, where due to soviet suppression, it existed only underground. It also fostered connections among Ukrainian émigrés in different countries. As a result, these factors contributed to the emergence of what Thomas Tweed termed “diasporic religion”, (Tweed 1997, pp. 94–97) which, in this case, manifested primarily in efforts to connect immigrants with their homeland and preserve the distinct features of the Ukrainian Christian tradition in contrast to the Western Christianity. Elements such as the Julian calendar, the broader religious tradition and rite, the liturgical language, and sacred architecture were considered integral and were to be maintained in their full authenticity, without modification. For the newcomers, these aspects played a translocative and transtemporal role, ensuring continuity with their homeland’s religious history, the present, and even future generations.

For example, in 1962, during the consecration of St. John the Baptist Church in Hunter, NY—built in the traditional Western Ukrainian style—a priest emphasized its symbolic significance: “as a precious memorial icon, which we, wanderers, took with us into emigration, to remind us of the native architecture and the native mountains with which it and we are connected” (Horniatkevych 1964, p. 40).

Certain leaders within this community asserted that the Church, far exceeding its religious functions, embodied the remnants of their lost statehood (Butrynskyi 1980, p. 8). In a parallel manner, the development of theological thought within the framework of diasporic religion aimed to clearly define the identity and self-sufficiency of the Ukrainian theological and spiritual tradition. This reflected the inherent diasporic theological desire to preserve the “authenticity” of tradition and prevent its dilution through “spiritual assimilation”. This desire manifested in the articulation of the distinct features of the Eastern theological tradition, often highlighting their differences from the Latin Christianity, sometimes even setting them in opposition to one another.

Certain authors advocated for the establishment of a diasporic “capital”, even a “spiritual state”, imbued with comprehensive political and cultural attributes, despite its territorial absence. As one author stated, Ukrainian society in exile, “… having forfeited its native land, transforms into a primarily spiritual community, becoming part of a spiritual Ukraine, unconquered by the enemy” (Vitkovskyi 1965, p. 6). Consequently, the newly arrived émigrés catalyzed the formation of four pivotal communal goals and ideals: paramount among them Ukrainian independence; followed by the intermediate objectives of effective international advocacy for the Ukrainian cause, the preservation and proliferation of cultural heritage under conditions precluding such development within Ukraine, and, most importantly, internal communal unity.1

Reflecting both the concepts of a diasporic spiritual state and the broader lay revival within the Catholic Church, the Ukrainian Christian Movement was established in 1955. Conceived as a movement of devout intellectuals, its primary objectives were to develop an ideological framework based on the principles of Christian democracy, widespread at the time, for further implementation in a free Ukraine; to reconcile the often divided political groups of the Ukrainian emigration; to advocate for the “Ukrainian question”, at international forums; and, crucially, to counter national and religious assimilation, and preserve community unity through various mobilization practices, including gatherings, demonstrations, and celebrations (Yaniv 1957).

3. Forging Unity: The Formation of the Ukrainian Bishops’ Conference

In parallel with these developments, the idea of a coordinating body for the Ukrainian episcopate was maturing among the hierarchy, reflecting a growing desire for unified leadership and action within the UGCC diaspora. The idea was rooted in the inter-diocesan meetings initiated by Metropolitan Sheptytsky in the 1920s and further demonstrated by the episcopal conferences held in Lviv (1927) and Rome (1929). These earlier conferences, convened with papal blessing, brought together bishops or their representatives from the Ruthenian rite eparchies of Lviv, Przemyśl, Stanislaviv, Mukachevo, Prešov, Križevci, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Winnipeg.

The concept of episcopal collegiality gained renewed momentum in the mid-1950s when bishop Maksym Hermaniuk of Winnipeg advocated for a joint Canadian–U.S. conference of Greek Catholic bishops, a proposal supported by Exarch Constantine Bohachevsky of Philadelphia in a 1954 consultation. Although the initial meeting in Washington (1954) focused on harmonizing liturgical practices, the bishops recognized the inherent necessity of such gatherings, indicating a growing desire for structured episcopal collaboration within the UGCC diaspora (Motiuk 2005, pp. 80–83).

Substantive discussions regarding the establishment of an episcopal conference of Ukrainian bishops in the diaspora commenced immediately following the enthronement of Maksym Hermaniuk as the first metropolitan in Canada, on 12 February 1957, and intensified thereafter, with the participation of bishops from the US, Gabriel Bukatko of Križevci, and Ivan Buchko, the Apostolic exarch in Western Europe.2 On 21 April, three Ukrainian bishops in the United States, Constantine Bohachevsky of Philadelphia, his auxiliary Joseph Shmondiuk, and Abbrose Senyshyn of Stamford convened in Philadelphia with Bishop Gabriel Bukatko, where they affirmed the necessity for annual meetings and resolved to request metropolitan Hermaniuk to preside over such a conference and to designate a meeting location (Ambrose Senyshyn to Constantine Bohachevsky, 6 April 1957//Archive of the Ukrainian Archeparchy of Philadelphia (AUAP) Box Greek Catholic Ordinariate in Philadelphia 1957, n.p. Note: n.p. means that the original document does not contain page numbers). In a letter to metropolitan Hermaniuk, Gabriel Bukatko emphasized that “our Church in our native lands and historical events” demanded “mutual connection, contacts, and joint coordinated action of our episcopate”. Speaking on behalf of the other bishops, Bukatko suggested that the initiative should originate from Hermaniuk, as “the metropolitan and the first among us”. He also recommended inviting Bishops Nicholas Elko and Stefan Kocisko of the Pittsburgh Exarchate,3 with whom he had previously met in the United States (Gabriel Bukatko to Maxim Hermaniuk 30 April 1957//AUAP, Box Greek Catholic Ordinariate in Philadelphia 1957, n.p.).

Despite initial enthusiasm, Bohachevsky declined to participate following the proclamation of the motu proprio Cleri sanctitati on 11 June 1957, referring to the fact that this case should be clarified by Rome. However, he subsequently attended the conference in Toronto after Hermaniuk informed him that the Congregation for the Oriental Churches had authorized the conference of the Canadian Metropolitanate with the participation of U.S. bishops (Maxim Hermaniuk to Constantine Bohachevsky, 3 August 1957//AUAP, Box Greek Catholic Ordinariate in Philadelphia 1957, n.p.). The meeting, attended by Canadian and American bishops, took place on 12 November 1957, in Toronto. At this meeting, it was established that the decisions “for individual hierarchs in their territories would not have the binding force of law, but would rather be of an orientation and directive nature” (Minutes of the Conference of Ukrainian Catholic Bishops of the Free World, 12 November 1957//AUAP, Box Greek Catholic Ordinariate in Philadelphia 1957, n.p.).

The subsequent conference convened in Philadelphia, United States, on 2–3 November 1958. The meeting commemorated two events: the establishment of the Philadelphia Metropolitanate and the enthronement of its first metropolitan, Constantine Bohachevsky, who presided over the conference. This gathering was notable for its expanded participation, including bishops from the United States and Canada, as well as Ivan Prashko from Australia and Josyf Martynets from Brazil. Despite the absence of Isidore Borecky from Toronto, Ivan Buchko, the Apostolic Exarch of Western Europe, and Gabriel Bukatko, who were unable to attend, eight of the eleven bishops were present. (Minutes of the Conference of Ukrainian Catholic Bishops, 2–3 November 1958//AUAP, Box Greek Catholic Ordinariate in Philadelphia 1958, n.p.).

The following conference was held in Rome from 12 to 14 October 1959. Attendance was further expanded, with eleven of the twelve bishops present. In addition to bishops from the United States, Canada, Brazil, Australia, and Ivan Buchko who resided in Rome, Platon Kornyliak, the newly appointed exarch in Germany, was also in attendance. Gabriel Bukatko of Križevci, though absent, submitted numerous proposals for discussion. Among the significant decisions, which demonstrated a growing desire to establish permanent supra-eparchial structures were the proposal of the creation of an inter-diocesan press bureau and a Liturgical Center in Rome. Another notable decision was the adoption of “Ukrainian Catholic Church”4 instead of “Ruthenian” as the official name of the Church. The bishops also issued a joint message to the faithful following the Rome meeting, proposing, among other things, that Ukrainian Orthodox bishops join them in addressing the Ecumenical Council, announced by Pope John XXIII, with a request to establish a common Kyivan Patriarchate, which will be in union with Rome (Minutes of the Conference of Ukrainian Catholic Bishops, 12–14 October 1959//AUAP, Box Greek Catholic Ordinariate in Philadelphia 1959, n.p.; Пастирське пoслання українських владик дo українськoгo нарoду 1959, pp. 9–10).

The next bishops’ conference was held in Munich, Germany, from 5 to 9 August 1960. This meeting was less well attended than its predecessors, with five of the twelve bishops absent, including metropolitan Constantine Bohachevsky of Philadelphia. A key decision of the Munich meeting was the approval of the Statute of the Ukrainian Catholic Conference, intended to establish a legal institution to replace the annual conferences. The statute was submitted to the Congregation for the Oriental Churches for review. Subsequently, it was adopted, with modifications based on the Congregation’s recommendations, at the conference held in Winnipeg, Canada, on 2–3 July 1962, where metropolitan Maksym Hermaniuk of Canada was elected its head (Minutes of the Conference of Ukrainian Catholic Bishops, 5–9 August 1960//AUAP, Box Greek Catholic Ordinariate in Philadelphia 1960, n.p.; Motiuk 2005, pp. 84–87).

The Winnipeg meeting was the largest to date, with thirteen of the fifteen bishops in attendance. The increase in attendees reflected the appointments of Volodymyr Malanchuk in France, Andriy Sapeliak in Argentina, Augustine Hornyak in Great Britain, and Yaroslav Gabro as bishop of the newly established eparchy of Chicago in the United States. Following the death of Metropolitan Constantine Bohachevsky of Philadelphia, Ambrose Senyshyn became the new metropolitan. Despite the Conference’s newly established legal institutional status, the Winnipeg meeting revealed the existing disagreements within the episcopate regarding the Conference’s significance. Notably, the newly appointed metropolitan Ambrose Senyshyn departed Winnipeg early, attributing his departure to the importance of his own metropolitan duties, in Philadelphia, over general Church matters (Historical Archive of the UGCC in Rome (HA UGCC), Ivan Prashko to Andriy Sapelak and Yosyf Martynets, 10 July 1971, os. 2, fasc. ІVa, ff. 46, pp. 349–54).5

While the bishops’ correspondence suggests general agreement on the need for ongoing conferences, the meeting minutes indicate a tendency to prioritize practical matters, such as liturgical details or clerical attire, rather than strategic issues. Furthermore, in instances of divergent opinions, matters were typically deferred to the discretion of local hierarchs or the Apostolic See. Additionally, the minutes reveal that certain issues were revisited across multiple conferences, indicating a lack of effective mechanisms for implementing decisions. This initial emphasis on practical, often localized concerns, was arguably logical given the nascent stage of these gatherings. As bishops from diverse contexts, with varying experiences and pastoral ministries, convened for the first time, it would have been unrealistic to expect immediate, mature collegial decision-making. Moreover, the UGCC’s development in the diaspora as a collection of exarchates and eparchies directly under Rome,6 without internal connection, further hindered the establishment of a cohesive, unified body capable of addressing broader strategic questions. Finally, the discord evident at the Winnipeg conference underscores that not all bishops shared an equal enthusiasm for the concept of a supra-eparchial body. In the case of Metropolitan Senyshyn, this was particularly significant, as the Church in the United States possessed the greatest financial capacity to support other exarchates and eparchies, and to facilitate collaborative projects.

The challenges faced by the Ukrainian bishops were further compounded by the absence of relevant canonical norms. In establishing a novel form of global interaction between eparchies of the same tradition, they lacked established precedents. Latin episcopal conferences, organized along territorial lines, provided no suitable model for the UGCC’s unique situation, which necessitated transcending geographical boundaries. This issue, however, was not entirely new. In the early twentieth century, as eparchial structures in immigrant settlement regions were emerging, proposals arose for the establishment of a Greek Catholic patriarchate with jurisdiction extending beyond territorial borders, based on personal rite affiliation (Відвідини Апoст. Нунція і йoгo “слoвo” 1938). These proposals were often rooted in a fear of disintegration, as the dispersed nature of the diaspora raised concerns about the preservation of its distinct identity and unity. However, these aspirations remained unrealized.

Concurrent with the episcopal efforts to establish collegial coordination, the laity articulated their own aspirations. While the old emigration ‘s interest in the bishops’ initiatives is difficult to ascertain, it is probable they had acclimated to prevailing conditions, becoming used to their current situation, confining their ecclesiastical perspectives to their respective eparchies, metropolitanates, or parishes. However, the newly arrived immigrants, as previously discussed, held a significantly different outlook. Amidst this period of heightened activity, voices emerged asserting that only the establishment of a UGCC patriarchate or a permanent collegial body for the Ukrainian episcopate in exile could safeguard the Church from disintegration and the erosion of its religious and national identity. Such a structure, it was argued, would facilitate the development and pastoral care of the faithful, while accumulating resources to prepare for the revival of the Church in the homeland (Nahayewsky 1962, p. 3).

These ideas garnered support among broader masses of laity and clergy. This senti-ment was reflected when, at bishop Isydore Borecky’s request, Fr. Meletii Soloviy submit-ted considerations and proposals regarding potential topics for Ukrainian bishops to raise during the Second Vatican Council sessions. Fr. Soloviy’s primary concern, as articulated in his text, was the absence of a leading Church center. He posited that only the creation of a patriarchate, titled of Kyiv and All Ukraine-Rus, could rectify this deficiency. According to Fr. Soloviy, this would elevate the Greek Catholic Church’s prestige both in the homeland and in emigration, enable it to show greater initiative and activity in all areas of church life, contribute to its “de-Latinization” in the “legal and canonical sense”, and strengthen the Church’s unity within the diaspora (Meletii Soloviy. The Shortcomings of Our Church Life, 1960//HA UGCC, Fond of Bohdan Lonchyna, Letters, Other, n.p.).

4. The Struggle for Autonomy: The UGCC in the Post-Vatican II Era

The situation underwent a dramatic shift following the release and subsequent arrival in Rome in February 1963 of Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj, the head of the Church, after 18 years of imprisonment in the Soviet Gulag. Slipyj promptly engaged in the ongoing work of the Second Vatican Council. On 19 August, amidst the developing discussions concerning the schema of the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches he submitted a comprehensive appeal to Pope Paul VI, raising the issue of the Ukrainian patriarchate (Josyf Slipyj to Paul VI, 19 August 1963//HA UGCC,2, ІVa, 29, pp. 108–14).

From 1963 to 1965, the Ukrainian bishops had the opportunity to convene annually in Rome for the sessions of the Ukrainian Bishops’ Conference, coinciding with the Second Vatican Council.7 The Conference’s activities resumed in autumn 1963, when the bishops were gathered in Rome for the Council sessions. Maksym Hermaniuk yielded his presidency to Josyf Slipyj, and the inaugural September meeting saw the attendance of 17 bishops, including Joachim Segedi, the newly appointed auxiliary bishop of Križevci. Bishops Nicholas Elko and Stefan Kocisko of the Pittsburgh Exarchate attended as observers. A significant decision emerged from this meeting: the establishment of a two-thirds majority vote for binding resolutions, meaning decisions that would be considered mandatory for the bishops, a measure opposed by 2 of the 17 bishops present. It was also agreed by the bishops that Josyf Slipyj, representing the entire Ukrainian episcopate, would petition the fathers of the Second Vatican Council to elevate the UGCC to patriarchal status, which he subsequently did on 11 October 1963 (Minutes of the Conference of Ukrainian Catholic Bishops 1963//HA UGCC, 2, IVa, 73, pp. 33–38).

Metropolitan Maksym Hermaniuk characterized the 1963 meeting of the Conference of Ukrainian Bishops as calm and orderly, with the sole point of contention being Josyf Slipyj’s proposal for a Ukrainian Catholic University in Rome (Hermaniuk 2012, pp. 130, 135). This institution, envisioned as the central research and educational center for the UGCC, would have received support from all dioceses in the diaspora. However, the proposal failed to secure the necessary votes.

Meanwhile, in December 1963, the Apostolic See, after examining historical documents in response to an ad dubium request from the UGCC head’s office, confirmed that the Archbishop-Metropolitan of Lviv was indeed major archbishop, a status inherently conferring rights equivalent to those of patriarchs.

The meetings of the Conference of Bishops during the 1964 session of the Vatican Council further highlighted the divisions within the episcopate. Bishops Ambrose Senyshyn, Augustyn Horniak, and Josyf Martynets were absent from nine of the eleven meetings, and their signatures, along with that of bishop Joseph Shmondiuk of Stamford, USA, were notably absent from the written request of the Ukrainian episcopate regarding the proclamation of the Ukrainian patriarchate, which was submitted to Pope Paul VI on 12 November 1964 (Minutes of the Conference of Ukrainian Catholic Bishops 1964//HA UGCC, 2, ІVa, 73, pp. 39–46; Bishops of the UGCC to Paul VI, 12 November 1964//HA UGCC 2, ІVa, 31, pp. 460–64).

Ambrose Senyshyn, the leader of this faction, maintained that the competence of the Conference of Ukrainian Bishops was limited to matters of rite and did not extend to administrative affairs or the pastoral strategies of individual bishops. He argued that other matters could be discussed within the Conference solely on a voluntary basis. Senyshyn emphasized that the Apostolic See held supreme authority over eparchies and metropolitanates in the diaspora,8 and, according to canon law, even patriarchs lacked jurisdiction beyond their canonical territories (Ambrose Senyshyn to Maksym Hermaniuk, September 1963//HA UGCC, 2, ІVa, 354, pp. 25–27). Bishop Josyf Martynets adopted a similarly detached stance, stating during the Conference meetings at the final session of the Second Vatican Council in 1965 that he considered himself a member of the Brazilian Episcopal Conference, and attended meetings of the Ukrainian bishops solely out of goodwill (Hermaniuk 2012, p. 277).

As his conflict with Josyf Slipyj intensified, Senyshyn accused Slipyj of seeking to subjugate the entire diaspora and return to the USSR, thereby placing all power over the UGCC in the hands of Soviet intelligence services (Ambrose Senyshyn to Josyf Slipyj, 9 November 1966//HA UGCC, 2, ІVa, 354, pp. 91–94). This accusation resonated with prior allegations leveled by radical nationalist circles. Slipyj expressed a desire to return to the USSR to be with his persecuted flock, and while retaining his Soviet citizenship, did not openly criticize Soviet authorities and refused to meet with nationalist leaders, likely to avoid angering Soviet authorities. When this became widely known, suspicions regarding his intentions were disseminated, and some nationalist groups within the diaspora attacked him. It remains difficult to ascertain the extent to which Senyshyn genuinely believed these claims, or if they were merely a tactical maneuver. However, according to Hermaniuk, Senyshyn and Horniak, during a meeting, expressed clearly their suspicions that Josyf Slipyj might be collaborating with the Soviets. This assertion was met with indignation and rejected by all other bishops present (Hermaniuk 2012, p. 187).

Fueled by outrage at the bishops’ opposition, lay organizations advocating for UGCC patriarchal status and autonomy emerged in the US and Canada. Most of its members belonged to the post-war wave of emigration, and some of their leaders had previously belonged to the Ukrainian Christian Movement. Furthermore, the 1964 promulgation of the Orientalium Ecclesiarum decree, particularly its assertion that Eastern Catholics “can and should always preserve their lawful liturgical rites and their rule of law, … and, if in their regard they have fallen short owing to contingencies of times and persons, they should take steps to return to their ancestral traditions” (OE, 6), held profound significance for the post-war wave of emigrants. This decree aligned with the core tenets of their diasporic religion, with its emphasis on the authenticity of tradition, and provided a crucial theological foundation for the newly established Committees for the Defense of Rite and Tradition. Despite disagreements on certain aspects, both lay movements coalesced around a common aspiration: to persuade the bishops and the Apostolic See to grant the UGCC greater internal autonomy. This vision entailed the creation of a UGCC synod of bishops, structured to operate in a coordinated manner under the authority of the patriarch.

The Roman Curia reacted negatively to the processes in the Ukrainian diaspora and on 22 April 1965, sent letters to all bishops stating that Pope Paul VI wished to end discussions about the patriarchate of the UGCC (Amleto Cicognani to Josyf Slipyj, 22 April 1965//HA UGCC, 2, ІVa, 33, p. 55).9 This intervention, however, had the unintended consequence of galvanizing the lay movement, which expanded across all countries of emigration and evolved from ad hoc committees into established lay organizations, as their initial advocacy for a patriarchate later expanded into a broader agenda.

Beyond personal, financial, or power issues, which should not be discounted in the context of the conflict between Ambrose Senyshyn and Josyf Slipyj, there was undoubtedly a fundamental difference in their views on ecclesiology and the interpretation of the Orientalium Ecclesiarum decree. Senyshyn’s emphasis on his direct dependence on Rome as a metropolitan in the US, effectively limiting the UGCC’s unity to a mere spiritual and symbolic expression, contrasted sharply with Slipyj’s vision. Josyf Slipyj interpreted the Orientalium Ecclesiarum decree as fundamentally altering the understanding of patriarchal or major archbishop’s jurisdiction, moving from a strictly territorial model to one that embraced personal jurisdiction based on rite. He saw this shift reflected in the Council Fathers’ use of the Latin conjunction ‘vel’ instead of ‘seu’ in defining patriarchal authority, arguing that ‘vel’ allowed for jurisdiction over both territory and rite, unlike ‘seu’, which equated rite with territory (Marksteiner-Mishchenko 2020, pp. 139–40). Catholic intellectuals within the patriarchal movement supported this opinion, arguing that the promulgation of the Orientalium Ecclesiarum decree rendered all prior laws, especially those inconsistent with the Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches, invalid (Chubaty 1969, p. 54).

The interpretation of Orientalium Ecclesiarum by Slipyj and his lay supporters was, to some degree, directly shaped by their practical goals. For them, the establishment of the patriarchate and synod served a predominantly pragmatic purpose, centered on the restoration of the Church in Ukraine, extending beyond a mere restoration of traditional Eastern Church governance. Given his inability to return to the USSR, Slipyj maintained a firm hope and belief that the Church in Ukraine would eventually emerge from its underground existence. However, he also recognized that its prolonged suppression would leave it significantly weakened, necessitating a concerted restoration effort by the diaspora. Therefore, he desired a cohesive and unified Church, structured to function as a singular, well-coordinated entity.

The very next year after the end of the Second Vatican Council, Slipyj, intending to implement his vision, planned to convene a synod of Ukrainian bishops in 1967. However, this plan was abandoned following interventions from the Congregation for the Oriental Churches and Pope Paul VI, coupled with a lack of consensus among the Ukrainian bishops. Rome’s position favored a Conference, to be convened by metropolitan Hermaniuk, its ex officio chairman (Yosyf Slipyj to Ivan Buchko, 2 April 1968//HA UGCC, 2, ІVa, 44, p. 269). Slipyj, however, argued that Hermaniuk’s chairmanship was no longer relevant after his release (Yosyf Slipyj to Maksym Hermaniuk, 19 October 1970//HA UGCC, 2, ІVa, 49, pp. 193–95).10 Hermaniuk himself supported Slipyj’s plan to convene a Synod in 1967, even encouraging him to proceed. He also rejected the proposal from the American bishops for a separate regional conference of Ukrainian bishops from the United States and Canada, advocating instead for the resolution of all matters with the participation of the entire episcopate (Yosyf Slipyj to Maksym Hermaniuk, 19 October 1970//HA UGCC, 2, ІVa, 49, pp. 159–60).

Despite initial enthusiasm, following the Apostolic See’s negative reaction, most bishops became wary of convening a synod. However, the situation shifted in the spring of 1968, when Josyf Slipyj embarked on his first extensive tour of Ukrainian diaspora communities. The tour commenced in Canada and concluded with visits to Australia and New Zealand in October of that year. Initially, his arrival in the USA was uncertain. However, the numerous events and enthusiastic reception accorded to the UGCC head in Canada, with many attendees traveling from neighboring US regions, prompted American bishops to extend an invitation. Slipyj’s visits to Ukrainian diaspora centers were marked by large gatherings and a powerful emotional resonance among the laity. These events visibly confirmed his undisputed recognition as the leader of the Greek Catholic segment of the Ukrainian diaspora. For many, his figure was suitable for the role of leader of a “spiritual state”.

The arrival of the Church’s head also revitalized the lay community, which had been significantly disappointed by the Vatican’s refusals regarding both the patriarchate and the convening of a UGCC synod. In the early months of 1969, patriarchal societies initiated a petition campaign in support of synod. According to Eva Piddubcheshen, approximately 65,000 to 67,000 Ukrainians in the USA joined this 1969 petition campaign, thanks to the involvement of numerous cultural and professional organizations (Piddubcheshen 1970, p. 30).

It can be reasonably inferred that the widespread actions of the faithful prompted the bishops and the UGCC head to adopt a more decisive stance and proceed with convening a Synod. The Synod of Bishops was held in Rome from 29 September to 4 October 1969, preceded by celebrations (27–28 September) marking the consecration of the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Rome, which were attended by numerous lay groups from around the world, with Pope Paul VI participating in the consecration. On 1 October, during the third session of the synod, lay representatives were granted the opportunity to address the bishops. In addition to the UGCC head, 16 bishops participated in the synod, including Vasyl Hopko, former bishop of Prešov eparchy. Metropolitan Ambrose Senyshyn, however, departed Rome prior to the meeting and, thus, did not participate in the episcopal sessions, nor did he sign the resolutions or the collective letter to the Pope regarding the patriarchate, which was signed by all other bishops (Minutes of the Synod of Ukrainian Catholic Bishops 1969//HA UGCC, 2, ІVa, 73, pp. 63–75; Bishops of the UGCC to Paul VI, 4 October 1969//HA UGCC, 2, ІVa, 38, pp. 441–45).

The decisions of this meeting encompassed a broad spectrum of 24 topics, addressing diverse aspects of Church life, ranging from married clergy and dialog with the Orthodox Church to the issue of mixed marriages and the future mission in Eastern Ukraine upon its potential independence. The laity responded to the Synod with considerable enthusiasm, perceiving it as a de facto affirmation of UGCC autonomy.

However, the Roman Curia contested the synod’s legitimacy. It reiterated that the Conference of Bishops remained the sole officially recognized collegial body of the UGCC. Despite this, the head of the UGCC continued to convene synods in Rome in 1971, 1973, and 1975. Disagreements persisted among the bishops regarding their status; while some considered them full-fledged synods, others, given Rome’s reaction, viewed them as synodal or pre-synodal meetings, or used the more general term “meetings” (Minutes of the Synod of Ukrainian Catholic Bishops 1971//HA UGCC, 2, ІVa, 73, pp. 146–53). Nevertheless, the minutes of these gatherings consistently referred to them as synods. All three meetings were well-attended, including participation from bishops in the USA.

However, due to persistent Vatican objections, the following gatherings in 1976, 1978, and 1979 were designated as episcopal “consultations”. As stated in the minutes of the 1976 meeting at the request of the bishops, the head of the UGCC agreed to alter the designation of the meetings, acknowledging that, due to the Vatican’s response, some bishops would decline participation under those circumstances. (Minutes of the Consultation of Ukrainian Catholic Bishops 1976//HA UGCC, 2, ІVa, 73, n.p.).

The 1970s marked a period of significant change within the laity, characterized by both profound disappointment and increasing radicalization. This shift was significantly influenced by external factors, including Pope Paul VI’s negative response to the patriarchate issue in 1971 and the direct prohibition against the UGCC head convening synods. Further exacerbating this dissatisfaction were the Vatican’s contacts with representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church. Pope Paul VI’s pontificate witnessed an intensification of Ostpolitik, the Vatican’s policy of seeking improved relations with Eastern Bloc countries, featuring numerous mutual visits of official delegations and bilateral negotiations. These developments, in turn, shaped the Roman Apostolic See’s approach to the “Ukrainian topic” in general and the UGCC patriarchate issue in particular (Dunn 1979, pp. 61–75; Floridi 1972).

The most prominent protest action of this period was the opposition to the Roman Curia’s nomination of John Stock and Basil Losten as auxiliary bishops of the Philadelphia. The ordination, held on 25 May 1971, in Philadelphia, was met with widespread and emotionally charged protests, including a hunger strike by representatives of the group of Ukrainian students. Similar, albeit less extensive, protests from the patriarchal movement accompanied the nominations of Bishops Ephrem Kryvyi (1972), Jeronim Chimy, Dmytro Hreshchuk, and Myroslav Marusyn (1974) (Sorokowski 2009, pp. 39–44). The laity did not oppose the persons themselves, but the procedure for their appointment bypassing the UGCC bishops and its head, and which, in their view, violated the rights of the UGCC granted it by the Union of Brest.

The lay patriarchal movement became a subject of discussion during the episcopal synods of 1971 and 1973. During these meetings, Josyf Slipyj noted a growing distrust of the hierarchy among the laity, citing recent diaspora events. He also emphasized the laity’s awareness and defense of their rights, advocating for guidance and leadership rather than condemnation. However, hierarchs such as bishops Augustine Gornyak, Isidore Borecky, Basil Losten, Ivan Prashko, and Maksym Hermaniuk expressed critical views of the patriarchal movement’s activities and methods, such as public demonstrations and petitions (Minutes of the Consultation of Ukrainian Catholic Bishops 1973//HA UGCC, 2, ІVa, 73, pp. 230–36). Though they generally adopted a cautious public stance.

The Vatican’s Ostpolitik, its policy of seeking improved relations with Eastern Bloc countries, contributed to strong anti-Roman sentiments among Ukrainian Greek Catholics in the diaspora, raising concerns about potential defections to the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. Consequently, some bishops refrained from publicly disseminating Pope Paul VI’s negative response to the patriarchate, fearing further discouragement and requesting Slipyj to pacify the faithful (Isidore Borecky to Josyf Slipyj, 23 August 1971//HA UGCC, 2, ІVa, 45, p. 19).

Ultimately, the laity’s and a segment of the clergy’s disillusionment with the Vatican fueled the increased public and liturgical commemoration of Josyf Slipyj with the patriarch title from 1973 onward. The publication of the Easter Message of the Ukrainian hierarchy in the semi-official edition “Вісті з Риму” (News from Rome), signed by Josyf Slipyj as “Patriarch and Cardinal”, (Сoбoрне Великoднє пoслання ієрархії пoміснoї Українськoї Катoлицькoї Церкви 1975) generated considerable enthusiasm within the lay community. Josyf Slipyj personally justified his consent to the use of the patriarch title as an effort to prevent further disillusionment among the UGCC laity and potential schism, a concern that had even been reported in the non-Ukrainian press (Yosyf Slipyj to Ivan Prashko, 24 July 1974//HA UGCC, 2, ІVa, 46, p. 562).

Despite subsequent admonitions from the Roman Curia regarding the canonical irregularity of his use of the title (Babiak 2005, pp. 136–37), no sanctions were imposed upon Slipyj. This was likely due to his considerable moral authority, stemming from his eighteen-year imprisonment as a confessor of the faith under Soviet rule. He continued to employ the title until his death in 1984. However, his successors did not maintain the practice of self-designation as patriarchs, despite the establishment within the UGCC of the custom of commemorating its head as patriarch liturgically and referring to him as such in everyday discourse.

The struggle for the right to convene synods, however, proved more successful, culminating in a resolution facilitated by Pope John Paul II. His pontificate, marked by a deeper understanding of the realities under communist rule in Eastern Europe and the specific pastoral needs of the UGCC both within Ukraine and throughout the diaspora, represented a significant shift in Vatican policy.

Although Josyf Slipyj’s declining health precluded his active participation in synods, beginning with the aforementioned synod in November 1980, Archbishop-Coadjutor Myroslav Ivan Lubachivsky assumed the presidency, subsequently becoming head of the UGCC in 1984. The synods of 1983, 1985, 1987, and 1989, while addressing contemporary diaspora issues, such as the election of candidates for vacant episcopal sees—a matter previously under the purview of the Roman Curia—increasingly focused on providing aid to the Church behind the Iron Curtain. The regularity of these synods and the comprehensive participation of the UGCC diaspora episcopate significantly ameliorated tensions with the active laity, fostering the emergence of a moderate faction committed to collaboration with the hierarchy rather than confrontation.

The significance of this development was underscored when, amidst dynamic changes in the USSR, ten bishops from Ukraine, emerging from clandestinity, traveled to Rome in 1990 to participate in the Extraordinary Synod alongside eighteen diaspora bishops. Despite lingering misunderstandings among diaspora hierarchs, which persisted, albeit to a lesser extent than in the 1960s and 1970s, and unavoidable friction between “diaspora” and “Ukrainian” hierarchs, stemming from their divergent experiences (Plokhy 1995), the bishops from Ukraine encountered a relatively cohesive diaspora Church. This Church promptly provided substantial support for the revival of ecclesiastical structures in Ukraine, which had been decimated by the Soviet totalitarian regime. Conversely, the new wave of emigration following the collapse of the USSR strengthened UGCC diaspora communities, while the Church in Ukraine largely addressed the shortage of priestly personnel in diaspora dioceses.11

Following the return of the head of the UGCC, Myroslav Ivan Lubachivsky, to Ukraine, synodal activities continued with regularity. Notably, in 2001, the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, a landmark event in UGCC history, elected Lubomyr Husar—a close associate of Josyf Slipyj—as head of the Church, with the participation of both Ukrainian and diaspora bishops. Despite initial disagreements during the election, Husar successfully fostered reconciliation among the episcopate (Спoгади прo Любoмира Гузара. Він був людинoю Свoбoди 2017). This contributed to a more unified trajectory for the Church and enabled it to effectively address the challenges it faced in subsequent years, particularly following Russia’s hybrid aggression against Ukraine in 2014 and the full-scale invasion in 2022. Once again, the diaspora Church emerged as a vital source of support for the Church in Ukraine, mirroring its role in the early 1990s.

5. Conclusions

The post-World War II trajectory of the UGCC diaspora reveals a profound struggle for synodal autonomy, driven by more than mere canonical considerations. Forced emigration and the imperative to preserve religious, national, and cultural identity fostered a unique diasporic religious experience, wherein ecclesiastical aspirations became inextricably linked to the preservation of collective identity. This situation arose, in part, from the unpreparedness of Catholic ecclesiology to address the emergence of Eastern Catholic diasporas. The Roman Curia’s and local Roman Catholic hierarchs’ emphasis on the territorial principle in church organization contributed to the gradual alienation of Greek Catholic communities, often forcibly dispersed across different nations. Furthermore, the establishment of hierarchies for Ukrainian Greek Catholics in various regions, while intended to ensure local bishop’s autonomy under centralized Roman administration, risked severing vital connections between eparchies sharing a common ecclesial tradition. This threatened the perceived unity of the Church, particularly in the eyes of many post-war Ukrainian emigrants, who viewed it as detrimental to the Church’s survival and its potential role in supporting the persecuted Church in Ukraine. The establishment of the Conference of Ukrainian Bishops, though a step towards unity, failed to fully bridge the deep disagreements within the episcopate.

The arrival of Josyf Slipyj ignited a critical conflict, as his vision for the UGCC, shaped by his interpretation of the Second Vatican Council, clashed with the centrifugal forces within the episcopate. This conflict, rooted in divergent ecclesiological views, was further exacerbated by the geopolitical realities of the Cold War and the Vatican’s Ostpolitik.

The radicalization of the laity, manifested in their assertive advocacy for synodal autonomy and patriarchal status, posed a significant challenge to the Church’s traditional authority structures. This movement, driven by a sense of displacement and a fervent desire to preserve their cultural and religious identity amidst perceived Roman indifference, profoundly disrupted the established hierarchical order. Slipyj’s controversial use of the patriarchal title, within this context, transcended mere symbolic gesture; it represented a strategic maneuver. It highlighted the enduring tension between canonical norms and the pragmatic imperatives of pastoral care, particularly in response to the extraordinary circumstances faced by the Church under Soviet rule, a tension further amplified by the unique exigencies of the diaspora.

Ultimately, the UGCC’s struggle for synodal autonomy was a product of historical, political, and theological tensions. It highlights the inherent difficulty of reconciling universal Church structures with the unique needs of diasporic communities, where religious and national identities are intertwined. The conflicting interpretations of Vatican II, coupled with Cold War constraints, shaped the UGCC’s development and its enduring relationship with the Holy See, establishing a particular precedent for continued discussion regarding the balance between universal governance and particular Church autonomy.

Josyf Slipyj never challenged the universal jurisdiction of the Pope. Rather, the tension stemmed from differing interpretations of the Bishop of Rome’s role as both universal pontiff and patriarch of the West. Contemporary polemics frequently questioned the unrestricted freedom of the Latin Church to develop in all regions, even where it constituted a minority, and Eastern traditions predominated. This, in turn, raised legitimate concerns regarding the restrictions imposed on Eastern patriarchs or major archbishops, particularly concerning the survival of their exiled flocks. Slipyj’s proposed solution was to grant Eastern Church heads personal jurisdiction over all faithful belonging to their respective ecclesial traditions.

In the view of the lay movement, many priests, and bishops, this situation contradicted the spirit and letter of the Second Vatican Council, which envisioned the Church as unitas in varietate, affirming the equal dignity of all traditions and rites and the imperative to preach the Gospel globally, transcending territorial boundaries (OE, 2–3). The synodal discourse within the UGCC during the 1970s and 1980s holds direct relevance for contemporary ecumenical dialog, particularly with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, where the self-governance of autocephalous Churches is a fundamental ecclesiological principle. Therefore, despite the prevalent negative sentiment in many Orthodox circles towards the very existence of Greek Catholics, often rooted in political considerations, the dynamics of relations between Rome and the sui iuris Eastern Catholic Churches serve as a crucial litmus test by which the Eastern Orthodox Churches may assess the feasibility of hypothetical unity.

Undoubtedly, the issue of the diaspora in this context remains complex. As it is not resolved even in the Orthodox world and is a subject of heated debate. On the one hand, the multiplication of parallel jurisdictions associated with ethnic groups undermines the universality of the Church and requires resolution. On the other hand, it is impossible not to consider the peculiarities of the diaspora mentality, for which connection with the Church of their native land, at least in the first generations, is crucial and must be considered in pastoral practice. Even in the case of subsequent generations, who may no longer consider themselves “diaspora” and associate themselves with the local nation, the memory of their origin can remain an important part of identity, where the Church plays a significant role. The UGCC case is unique in this regard, as these events took place when the Church in the homeland lived on the verge of destruction. Nevertheless, certain arguments and solutions may be relevant to contemporary Catholic ecclesiology.