OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 31, 2014, 06:30:37 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Whoa! Examples of total Papal jurisdiction over the Eastern "Catholic" Church  (Read 12873 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
nonchal
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« on: March 09, 2007, 09:55:44 PM »

Here are the results of some research I have done on the Eastern Church of Rome. Please tell me if I am wrong on some areas.

When an Eastern patriarch dies, the Roman Curia appoints a Vicar Apostolic Patriarchal (which corresponds to a Vicar Capitular in the West), who summons a council to elect a new patriarch. The Vicar Apostolic presides over the council and hands the Patriarchal Dikanikion to the man elected patriarch. Then the council and the patriarch-elect write to the pope. He sends a profession of faith, takes an oath of obedience to Rome, and begs for the pallium. (*see below for what the pallium means*) The pope chooses whether or not to accept him. If the pope does not accept the candidate then the nomination devolves on the pope. But if accepted, the patriarch-elect travels to Rome to receive the pallium from the pope, without which he cannot act as patriarch.

Out of about six Eastern patriarchs, three of them are Cardinals, ie priests of the Diocese of Rome and members of the Roman Curia. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “In the Catholic Church since Eugene IV (1431-47) cardinals have precedence over patriarchs. Uniat patriarchs are elected by a council of all the bishops of the patriarchate and confirmed by the Holy See. They must send a profession of Faith to the pope and receive the pallium from him.”

Popes have decreed that, while Eastern churches can hold local councils, Rome must confirm their decisions. Furthermore Rome has decreed that patriarchs must have permanent representatives in Rome, that patriarchs must make an ad limina visit to Rome (to receive instructions etc) every ten years, that the approval of Rome is needed to found dioceses, and that patriarchs cannot resign their office without the approval of Rome.

In regards to Eastern churches that do not have a patriarch, but rather a metropolitan, the pope must confirm the election of a new metropolitan. The pope appoints regular Eastern bishops just as he does for the Latin church, ie a list of candidates is sent to the pope and the pope selects a bishop for them, but the papal choice does not have to be from the list submitted to him.


*** Note: to confer the pallium means to confer jurisdictional rights. Wikipedia and the Catholic Encyclopedia state:
 
Quote
"The Pallium or Pall is an ecclesiastical vestment in the Roman Catholic Church, originally peculiar to the Pope, but for many centuries bestowed by him on metropolitans and primates as a symbol of the jurisdiction delegated to them by the Holy See."

"The evolution of this character was complete about the end of the eleventh century; thenceforth the pallium is always designated in the papal Bulls as the symbol of plenitudo pontificalis officii. …

"Worn by the pope, the pallium symbolizes the plenitudo pontificalis officii (i.e. the plenitude of pontifical office); worn by archbishops, it typifies their participation in the supreme pastoral power of the pope, who concedes it to them for their proper church provinces. An archbishop, therefore, who has not received the pallium may not exercise any of his functions as metropolitan, nor any metropolitan prerogatives whatever; he is even forbidden to perform any episcopal act until invested with the pallium. Similarly, after his resignation, he may not use the pallium; should he be transferred to another archdiocese. He must again petition the Holy Father for the pallium. …

"The use of the pallium among metropolitans did not become general until the ninth century, when the obligation was laid upon all metropolitans of forwarding a petition for the pallium accompanied by a solemn profession of faith, all consecrations being forbidden them before the reception of the pallium. The object of this rule was to bring the metropolitans into more intimate connection with the seat of unity and the source of all metropolitan prerogatives, the Holy See, to counteract the aspirations of various autonomy-seeking metropolitans, which were incompatible with the Constitution of the Church, and to counteract the evil influences arising therefrom…

"The oath of allegiance which the recipient of the pallium takes today originated, apparently, in the eleventh century. It is met with during the reign of Paschal II (1099-1118), and replaced the profession of faith. …

"The symbolic character now attached to the pallium dates back to the time when it was made an obligation for all metropolitans to petition the Holy See for permission to use it. The evolution of this character was complete about the end of the eleventh century; thenceforth the pallium is always designated in the papal Bulls as the symbol of plenitudo pontificalis officii.

« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 10:00:27 PM by nonchal » Logged
nonchal
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2007, 05:32:16 PM »

Would an Eastern member of the Church of Rome like to comment on this?
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 10, 2007, 05:57:45 PM »

Probably not since most Eastern Catholics here probably doubt your motives for posting this stuff on an Orthodox website. This thread seems to be an inter-Catholic thread and not an Orthodox/Catholic debate thread.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2007, 12:46:45 AM »

Here are the results of some research I have done on the Eastern Church of Rome. Please tell me if I am wrong on some areas.

When an Eastern patriarch dies, the Roman Curia appoints a Vicar Apostolic Patriarchal (which corresponds to a Vicar Capitular in the West), who summons a council to elect a new patriarch. The Vicar Apostolic presides over the council and hands the Patriarchal Dikanikion to the man elected patriarch. Then the council and the patriarch-elect write to the pope. He sends a profession of faith, takes an oath of obedience to Rome, and begs for the pallium. (*see below for what the pallium means*) The pope chooses whether or not to accept him. If the pope does not accept the candidate then the nomination devolves on the pope. But if accepted, the patriarch-elect travels to Rome to receive the pallium from the pope, without which he cannot act as patriarch.

Out of about six Eastern patriarchs, three of them are Cardinals, ie priests of the Diocese of Rome and members of the Roman Curia. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “In the Catholic Church since Eugene IV (1431-47) cardinals have precedence over patriarchs. Uniat patriarchs are elected by a council of all the bishops of the patriarchate and confirmed by the Holy See. They must send a profession of Faith to the pope and receive the pallium from him.”

Popes have decreed that, while Eastern churches can hold local councils, Rome must confirm their decisions. Furthermore Rome has decreed that patriarchs must have permanent representatives in Rome, that patriarchs must make an ad limina visit to Rome (to receive instructions etc) every ten years, that the approval of Rome is needed to found dioceses, and that patriarchs cannot resign their office without the approval of Rome.

In regards to Eastern churches that do not have a patriarch, but rather a metropolitan, the pope must confirm the election of a new metropolitan. The pope appoints regular Eastern bishops just as he does for the Latin church, ie a list of candidates is sent to the pope and the pope selects a bishop for them, but the papal choice does not have to be from the list submitted to him.


*** Note: to confer the pallium means to confer jurisdictional rights. Wikipedia and the Catholic Encyclopedia state:
 

Not to be rude, but, duh!!! Wink If you read Vatican I, it states that the Pope has universal jursidiction over the entire Church. You know this. Latin Catholics know this. Eastern Catholics know this. Eastern Orthodox Christians know what Vatican I says. Heck, even Protestants know this. What is your point?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2007, 01:13:33 AM »

Eh, it's always funner to think one has found the smoking gun that no one else has ever noticed. Wink
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
nonchal
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #5 on: March 11, 2007, 01:30:53 AM »

Eh, it's always funner to think one has found the smoking gun that no one else has ever noticed. Wink

What is this supposed to mean?

I posted the information because some members of the universal diocese of Rome might not be aware of how the pope controls the Eastern branch of his church. And also to make sure that the information is accurate. As I said in the first post: if something here is inaccurate let me know.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 11, 2007, 01:54:00 AM »

What is this supposed to mean?

I posted the information because some members of the universal diocese of Rome might not be aware of how the pope controls the Eastern branch of his church. And also to make sure that the information is accurate. As I said in the first post: if something here is inaccurate let me know.

Well, it's just, taken in context with things like your posting history and your sig line, one does not get the impression that you are altogether fair-minded towards Roman Catholics.  I realize that you state that you are seeking clarification, but you appear to be whipping out a "smoking gun" at our Catholic friends.  The fact that you are debating intra-Catholic things on an Orthodox site seems strange also--why not ask your question on byzcath.org since you are asking a specifically intra-Catholic question?  I don't doubt you want to learn but at the same time, your question does not appear altogether innocent (it also seems you are baiting).

My intent is not to judge your intentions--you haven't violated any posting rules which is why I made a joke about this--but rather to make light of the way your post might be construed to be the things I have pointed out above.  I have to admit, you are the only person I have ever met that calls Chalcedon the "real vatican 2" lol

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2007, 08:52:30 AM »

funner
Please tell me that this hasn't become an accepted word in American English! Cheesy
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2007, 10:36:18 AM »

Nah George, it has not, but my dear wife's family (English is their second language) uses this word all the time and it wore off on me.  As I was hitting send I realize I used it but was like oh well.

Thanks for catching my error Smiley
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2007, 03:44:12 PM »

What is this supposed to mean?

I posted the information because some members of the universal diocese of Rome might not be aware of how the pope controls the Eastern branch of his church. And also to make sure that the information is accurate. As I said in the first post: if something here is inaccurate let me know.
Actually, what you have posted would not come as any surprise to Latin Catholics. We are taught since the time that we are children that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. We would expect nothing less. We tend to be more suprised over the amount of autonomy that the Eastern Patriarchs are granted and over the fact that Pope does not get involved in local more matters MORE often.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2007, 04:13:12 PM »

The CCD classes must be way different where I live.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2007, 04:13:47 PM by welkodox » Logged
nonchal
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #11 on: March 11, 2007, 06:44:19 PM »

Papist, so you think its normal that three out of six Eastern Patriarchs are Cardinals (ie priests of the Diocese of Rome), that the Patriarchs accept the Cardinal hat as a rank added to their Patriarchal status, and that (as the Catholic Encyclopedia outright states) the rank of Cardinal is greater than Patriarch? Furthermore that the pope more or less controls the election of Eastern patriarchs/metropolitans/bishops? And so on...

No wonder Pius XII authoritatively stated that "Roman" is the fifth mark of his church.

Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,890


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #12 on: March 11, 2007, 08:57:31 PM »

Nonchal,

Well you are wrong on every area concerning patriarchs.  Please refrain from using the out of date New Advent online Catholic Encyclopedia for the basis of your arguements.

Eastern Catholic Patriarchs are elected and enthroned by their Synods.  The Patriarch requests communion with the Pope. No Latin representative is involved.  Major Archbishops are elected by their Synods and confirmed by the Pope. Metropolitans (who are heads of sui iuris churches) are chosen by the Pope.

Eastern Catholic Patriarchs chosen as cardinals are placed in the rank of cardinal bishop and have their patriarchal see as their title.

The pallium is no longer as a matter of law conferred on patriarchs or major archbishops or metropolitans under the these, but it seems to still be conferred to those who desire it as I have seen the Maronite, Chaldean and Armenian Patriarchs wearing it.  Now the CCEO still states that Metropolitans who head sui iuris churches are to request the pallium, in practice it is not done.  At least it was not done with the current Ruthenian Metropolitan of Pittsburgh who did not request or receive one, and was done in modified way with his predecessor due to the Ecumencial Patriarch throwing a tantrum about a Byzantine Catholic hierarch receiving the pallium in his presence.  It was handed to him in a private meeting rather than invested with it liturgically at the Mass on the Feast of SS Peter and Paul.

Fr. Deacon Lance


Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #13 on: March 11, 2007, 09:07:43 PM »

Nonchal,

Well you are wrong on every area concerning patriarchs.  Please refrain from using the out of date New Advent online Catholic Encyclopedia for the basis of your arguements.

Eastern Catholic Patriarchs are elected and enthroned by their Synods.  The Patriarch requests communion with the Pope. No Latin representative is involved.  Major Archbishops are elected by their Synods and confirmed by the Pope. Metropolitans (who are heads of sui iuris churches) are chosen by the Pope.

Eastern Catholic Patriarchs chosen as cardinals are placed in the rank of cardinal bishop and have their patriarchal see as their title.

The pallium is no longer as a matter of law conferred on patriarchs or major archbishops or metropolitans under the these, but it seems to still be conferred to those who desire it as I have seen the Maronite, Chaldean and Armenian Patriarchs wearing it.  Now the CCEO still states that Metropolitans who head sui iuris churches are to request the pallium, in practice it is not done.  At least it was not done with the current Ruthenian Metropolitan of Pittsburgh who did not request or receive one, and was done in modified way with his predecessor due to the Ecumencial Patriarch throwing a tantrum about a Byzantine Catholic hierarch receiving the pallium in his presence.  It was handed to him in a private meeting rather than invested with it liturgically at the Mass on the Feast of SS Peter and Paul.

Fr. Deacon Lance



Thanks for the information Deacon Father.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #14 on: March 11, 2007, 09:08:55 PM »

Papist, so you think its normal that three out of six Eastern Patriarchs are Cardinals (ie priests of the Diocese of Rome), that the Patriarchs accept the Cardinal hat as a rank added to their Patriarchal status, and that (as the Catholic Encyclopedia outright states) the rank of Cardinal is greater than Patriarch? Furthermore that the pope more or less controls the election of Eastern patriarchs/metropolitans/bishops? And so on...

No wonder Pius XII authoritatively stated that "Roman" is the fifth mark of his church.


Its too bad that we don't have a "yawning" emoticon on this forum.

Many Blessings in Christ
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,339


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 11, 2007, 09:21:41 PM »

Please tell me that this hasn't become an accepted word in American English! Cheesy

I am not as romantic as Anastasios.  I'll be the first (if not the last ) tell you that it IS a part of "coloqial" American English.  99.9999999% of Americans (love the broad overgenaralizations) use funner as opposed to more fun, and 98% of those have no idea that its wrong.   Wink Grin

Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
nonchal
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #16 on: March 12, 2007, 12:20:44 AM »

Well you are wrong on every area concerning patriarchs.  Please refrain from using the out of date New Advent online Catholic Encyclopedia for the basis of your arguements.

HUH?? How am I wrong on "every area" concerning patriarchs??? Well, for anyone who does not have a prejudice against the *historical facts* (at least prior to VaticanII I guess), please go to the "out of date" (ie unecumenical) Catholic Encyclopedia to see for yourselves. Last week Papist wrote a thread on Eastern Roman Catholics who do not want to adhere to Roman Catholicism...

Quote
Eastern Catholic Patriarchs are elected and enthroned by their Synods.  The Patriarch requests communion with the Pope. No Latin representative is involved.  Major Archbishops are elected by their Synods and confirmed by the Pope. Metropolitans (who are heads of sui iuris churches) are chosen by the Pope.

Thanks for the clarification on the Latin representative. However, there was a Latin representative involved in the past, as I have seen documented in numerous sources.

So Rome must confirm the patriarchs and archbishops. I presume that he still has power to reject their decisions. He sure did reject them in the past. I saw numerous examples of this when I was doing the research.

In regards to metropolitans: looks like the pope still appoints them himself. How about the regular bishops?

Note: I appreciate the clarification. But I have a hard time believing that every historical fact in the Catholic Encyclopedia on patriarchs is wrong. This is just ridiculous. Realistic clarifications will be more believable.






Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,890


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #17 on: March 12, 2007, 02:00:37 AM »

Nonchal,

You asked to be corrected. You consulted an outdated pre-Vatican II source that while valid in some respects is completely invalid in others, Canon Law having been changed since then.  But it is as I posted, everything you related about patriarchs is now invalid.  You posted as if the encyclopedia article was still valid.  You did not post this information as historical fact but present fact.  Please consult the CCEO for current facts: http://www.jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html

And no, patriarchs are not confirmed by the Pope.  They are elected and enthroned by their Synod.  They then request communion with the Pope, which theoretically could be denied, but it would not change the fact the Pope has no say in the selection.  Major Archbishops are elected by their Synod andconfirmed by the Pope, this is the only difference between patriarchs and major archbishops.  In churches headed by patriarchs and major archbishops, the Synods elect the bishops.  Technically by law in the diaspora Rome appoints the bishops with the consultation of the Synod but in practice the Synods are choosing these as well with Rome rubber stamping though nominally making the appointment.  For churches headed by Metropolitans, or simple bishops or exarchs, Rome appoints them.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #18 on: March 12, 2007, 08:08:34 AM »

I think a more accurate picture of the situation might be in order.

The CCEO does lay out the basic relationship between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Roman Catholic Church.  Reading it will give you some idea of how thing are structured.  A few of the important canons are the following:

Canon 43

The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Canon 44

1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by means of legitimate election accepted by him together with episcopal consecration; therefore, one who is already a bishop obtains this same power from the moment he accepts his election to the pontificate, but if the one elected lacks the episcopal character, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

2. If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office (munus), it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone.

Canon 45

1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.

2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.

3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 46

1. In exercising his office (munus) the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia, pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him according to the needs of the times; all these persons and institutes carry out the task committed to them in his name and by his authority for the good of all the Churches, according to the norm of law established by the Roman Pontiff himself.

2. The participation of patriarchs and other hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris in the synod of bishops is regulated by special norms established by the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 51

1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve it, and to confirm its decrees.

2. It is for the same Roman Pontiff to determine matters to be treated in a council and to establish the order to be followed in the same council; to the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff the fathers of a council can add other questions, to be approved by the same Roman Pontiff.


One of the major issues usually pointed to is the relationship of the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs and the Curia.  Patriarch Gregory III Laham said the following:

Quote
H.B. Gr??goire III LAHAM, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melchites, Syria

It is incorrect to include the Patriarchal Synod under the title of Episcopal Conferences. It is a completely distinct organism. The Patriarchal Synod is the supreme instance of the Eastern Church. It can legislate, elect bishops and Patriarchs, cut off those who differ.

In No. 75, a "particular honor" given to Patriarchs is mentioned. I would like to mention that this diminishes the traditional role of the Patriarch, as well as speaking about the honor and privileges of the Patriarchs in ecclesiastical documents.

It is not a question of honor, of privileges, of concessions. The patriarchal institution is a specific entity unique in Eastern ecclesiology.

With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, "servatis servandis", in Eastern ecclesiology.

Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.

Furthermore, the Patriarchal ministry is not a Roman creation, it is not the fruit of privileges, conceded or granted by Rome.

Such a concept can but ruin any possible understanding with Orthodoxy.

We claim this also for our Patriarchal Melkite Church and for all our Eastern Catholic Churches.

We have waited too long to apply the decrees of Vatican Council II and the Encyclicals and letters by the Popes, and notably by Pope John Paul II.

Because of this the good will of the Church of Rome loses credibility regarding ecumenical dialogue.

We can see the opposite occurring: the CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology!

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_20_x-ordinaria-2001/02_inglese/b10_02.html

I think what he is pointing out is that there is not only an issue of the EC patriarchates not only not being the equals of the Pope, but that they are effectively subordinated to the Curia itself.

In terms of episcopal elections, I have heard different things from what I am reading here.  In an interview with Cardinal Husar, the Major Archbishop of the UGCC, he said

Quote
You have declared that the Ukrainians themselves must create the unity of the Church in the Ukraine, because it can?t come «either from Moscow or from Rome». How would an eventual Ukrainian Church united and in communion with Peter?s successor behave towards the Church of Rome?

HUSAR: That would be another matter to deal with at the Synod: to clarify what it means for an Eastern Church to be in communion with the See of Peter. So the Orthodox would be able to see in advance what their fate will be, once unity has been achieved. You see, it?s also a matter of very practical things. When our Synod chooses candidates for the episcopate, I must wait a year before they are approved by Rome. I?m sure that neither Patriarch Bartholomew nor Patriarch Alexis would accept a thing of the kind. And it?s a practice that could very well be changed: it certainly doesn?t touch any essential truth of the faith.

http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9600

Melkite Patriarch Gregory III Laham said the following:

Quote
But the Eastern Churches themselves are sometimes troubled as regards the nominations of bishops.
GRÉGOIRE III: For a hundred and fifty years we have elected our bishops without interferences from Rome, though nobody has ever denied Rome the right to intervene, and to us the right to apply to Rome. Simply, Rome doesn?t intervene de facto. For all that time we have elected good bishops. I don?t understand why we can?t do it now.
And when did all this change?
GRÉGOIRE III: The practice was changed by Vatican II. It?s very strange. It?s strange that after Vatican II, instead of there being more freedom and autonomy for the Eastern Churches, the space has narrowed.

http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9596

My feeling is these get more to the reality of the situation as it is now.  My understanding is at various times, including the present, the Curia has interfered in the affairs of the EC churches in various ways (the Eastern tradition of married clergy being an obvious example).  I also believe this can be more of an issue for EC's outside of their patriarchal or home church territories because in the diaspora they are not subject to their own mother churches, but to Rome directly.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2007, 08:26:49 AM by welkodox » Logged
nonchal
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #19 on: March 12, 2007, 11:31:56 AM »

Deacon, it appears to me that you have severe prejudice against the preVaticanII structures of the Church, despite the fact that these were the structures that existed for the past several hundred years, and which have been altered only in the last 40 years. Thanks for the clarifications on the present state of things. However, anyone who wants to know how things really were for the past centuries can go to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which I got most of my information from.

Welkodox highlighted the problems that remain. The patriarchs themselves admit it. But these same patriarchs are proud of being Cardinal priests of the Diocese of Rome. LOL. Go figure. Question to Deacon: Is it not odd that Eastern Patriarchs are Cardinals of Rome?

Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,339


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 12, 2007, 11:34:50 AM »


Welkodox highlighted the problems that remain. The patriarchs themselves admit it. But these same patriarchs are proud of being Cardinal priests of the Diocese of Rome. LOL. Go figure. Question to Deacon: Is it not odd that Eastern Patriarchs are Cardinals of Rome?


Maybe you are using specifically "catholic" terminology, but what do you mean by Patriarchs?  the way that I understood you was that the Eastern Patriarchs = Orthodox Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches. 

If this is true, then are they really called Cardinals of Rome? 

Maybe I missed something amidst all of this....?
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 12, 2007, 12:23:31 PM »

he is talking about the Eastern Catholic patriarchs (sometimes called Uniates but that term is considered rude by EC's).
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
bergschlawiner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 235

Sarisan


« Reply #22 on: March 12, 2007, 12:55:58 PM »

Papist, so you think its normal that three out of six Eastern Patriarchs are Cardinals (ie priests of the Diocese of Rome), that the Patriarchs accept the Cardinal hat as a rank added to their Patriarchal status, and that (as the Catholic Encyclopedia outright states) the rank of Cardinal is greater than Patriarch? Furthermore that the pope more or less controls the election of Eastern patriarchs/metropolitans/bishops? And so on...

The best thing the RC's could do is abolish this so called rank of "cardinal"
Seems like something totally political and nothing to do with the Faith.
Maybe a later imitation of the Roman "senate" or the "electors" of the later Holy Roman Empire.  :(Also the red "sombreros" look ridiculous.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,890


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #23 on: March 12, 2007, 01:13:34 PM »

Nonchal,

Yes, I certainly am prejudiced against Roman mistreatment of Eastern Catholics be it past or present.  That does not change the fact that you tried to present old info as current, asked for correction, and then complained about being corrected.  In doing so your own prejudices are revealed.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #24 on: March 12, 2007, 01:29:01 PM »

I think this was mostly intended as a wind up.  I think most Eastern Catholics would say their relationship with Rome is far from ideal, though you will get different opinions or feelings as to how good or bad it is given the different perspectives.  Not all of the churches have the same relationship or view of Rome either.  The Melkites are certainly different from the Ruthenians for example.
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,339


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 12, 2007, 02:54:00 PM »

he is talking about the Eastern Catholic patriarchs (sometimes called Uniates but that term is considered rude by EC's).

SO, my next question is, why would it be wierd that they be given the rank/title of Cardinal in Rome, since they ARE under Rome? 

What am I missing here?  (It seems like i'm missing something... Undecided )
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 12, 2007, 03:00:16 PM »

SO, my next question is, why would it be wierd that they be given the rank/title of Cardinal in Rome, since they ARE under Rome? 

What am I missing here?  (It seems like i'm missing something... Undecided )

Because Rome is returning to a somewhat collegial ecclesiology and as such, it is embarassing to have the head of one Church be subordinate to delegates of another or even be enrolled in the ranks of clergy of another.  Of course practically the pope is the head of all Churches in Catholic understanding, but that does not jive with what they are trying to do for ecumenical reasons in relation to Orthodox, which is show respect for other patriarchs. Orthodox say, "if that's how you treat those in communion with you, we don't want to be in communion with you" and that is what the RC's are carefully trying to address.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,339


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 12, 2007, 04:18:36 PM »

Interesting.  Thanks for the info.   Smiley
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
nonchal
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #28 on: March 12, 2007, 06:01:46 PM »

SO, my next question is, why would it be wierd that they be given the rank/title of Cardinal in Rome, since they ARE under Rome? 

What am I missing here?  (It seems like i'm missing something... Undecided )

Well I guess its logical that Roman Catholic Eastern Patriarchs would be Cardinals of the Papal Court. The point though is that this is a complete embarassment for well-intentioned Roman Catholics like Deacon Lance.

A Cardinal is an incardinated (ie grafted into) priest of the actual local Diocese of Rome Italy. The office is an outgrowth of the real Roman presbytery. In the Gregorian Reform the popes started incardinating bishops into his own diocese. This was to establish more effective political administration. Of course it was meant for the Western Patriarchate alone.

To incardinate Easterners into the Diocese of Rome is to make them ornaments of the Papal Court. LOL. In fact the Catholic Encyclopedia states that this is what the original post-Crusade Eastern Patriarchs (who were Latins living in Rome) were for about 850 years. The CE also states that, since the fifteenth century, the office of Cardinal is higher than Patriarch. This is what Catholics believed until 40 years ago.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2007, 06:20:23 PM by nonchal » Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,890


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #29 on: March 12, 2007, 06:50:19 PM »

Cardinals are either Cardinal Bishops, Cardinal Priests, or Cardinal Deacons, even though with a few rare exceptions all named to the cardinalate are bishops or expected to assume episcopal ordination.  Cardinal Bishops are given the title of one of the Suburbican Sees or in the case of Eastern Patriarchs retain their own See. Cardinal Priests are assigned title to one of the parishes of Rome. Cardinal Deacons are assigned title to one of the ancient deaconries which no longer exist.

There is no agreement over whether it is proper for Eastern Catholic bishops to be named cardinals.  One can look at what historically the cardinalate was and say no or what it has evolved into and say yes.  An easier solution would be abolish the Curia or reduce its authority to the Latin Church, and adopt a permanent Synod who would then assist the Pope in his duties as Supreme Pontiff, leaving the Pope free to establish local/regional Synods for the governance of the Latin Church, which Pope Benedict has spoken favorably of..  This is in fact what the Melkites suggested at Vatican II.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #30 on: March 12, 2007, 07:08:53 PM »

Deacon, it appears to me that you have severe prejudice against the preVaticanII structures of the Church, despite the fact that these were the structures that existed for the past several hundred years, and which have been altered only in the last 40 years. Thanks for the clarifications on the present state of things. However, anyone who wants to know how things really were for the past centuries can go to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which I got most of my information from.

Welkodox highlighted the problems that remain. The patriarchs themselves admit it. But these same patriarchs are proud of being Cardinal priests of the Diocese of Rome. LOL. Go figure. Question to Deacon: Is it not odd that Eastern Patriarchs are Cardinals of Rome?


I think these Patriarchs are making an issue over a non-issue. Sorta like throwing a fit. "The Vicar of Christ is getting into our business!" It sounds so absurd.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #31 on: March 12, 2007, 08:08:14 PM »

You crack me up Papist.  Cheesy
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,890


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #32 on: March 12, 2007, 08:17:21 PM »

Papist,

It is not absurd at all.  While recognizing the Popes role as head of the epicopal college and appeal of last resort, the Patriarchs rightly believe the Pope should not be involving himself in the internal governance of the Eastern Churches, and certainly should not be having the Curia do so.  As Vatican II proclaimed, all bishops are vicar of Christ.  If one trys to micromanage others it will only cause problems.  Likewise the Pope should refrain from intervening at the behest of whiny Latin bishops who, rather than educate their flock, would deny Eastern Catholics their rights so their faithful aren't "scandalized".  The OCA and ACROD can happily tell you the results of that.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #33 on: March 12, 2007, 09:57:15 PM »

What I remembered hearing was that beyond their patriarchal territories, the eastern patriarchs or major archbishops could only exercise influence in the liturgical matters of their overseas flocks.  Direct control of eastern churches in the diaspora being under Rome.  I found an interview with the Maronite Patriarch that says the following about the role of the patriarch outside their territory:

Quote
I. Introduction

Every Maronite knows that the head of the universal Catholic Church is His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, Pope of Rome, and that the head of the Maronite Church is His Beatitude, Mar Nasrallah Boutros Cardinal Sfeir, Maronite Patriarch of Antioch and All the East.  As Catholics and Maronites we honor and revere both the Pope and the Patriarch.

The authority and place of the Pope is well understood throughout the world, just as the authority and place of the Patriarch is in Lebanon.  However, the role of the Patriarch is not nearly so clear, nor so well understood, when it comes to the situation of Maronites who are living outside of the Middle East, like us here in the United States.

II. The Figure of the Patriarch

According to the fathers of the Second Vatican Council, the Patriarch is the “Father and Head” of the Maronite Church.  As Patriarch, he enjoys full power over all the Bishops and Faithful of the Maronite Church according to the norm of law approved by the Supreme Authority of the Church (the Pope or an Ecumenical Council acting together with the Pope).  He represents in his person the entire Maronite Church, and he is the principal representative and spokesman for the Maronite Church and for all Maronites everywhere.

III. Synodal Governance

The authentic Eastern form of Church governance is synodal, not monarchical, so the Patriarch actually governs the Maronite Church together with the Synod of Bishops.  The Patriarch exercises executive power and the Synod of Bishops exercises legislative power, similar to the American secular government.  That is the reason that all the Maronite Bishops throughout the world gather at Bkerk? every June for the annual meeting of the Synod of Bishops.  There, under the presidency of the Patriarch, all major decisions affecting the Maronite Church are discussed and made.

IV. Powers Inside/Outside Territory

However, the present Eastern Canon Law distinguishes between the powers of the Patriarch and Synod of Bishops inside the “Patriarchal Territory” and outside of it; and it expressly states that their powers are exercised validly only inside the Patriarchal Territory, with certain limited exceptions (CCEO Canons 78, § 2 and 150, §§2 and 3).  The basic reality is that all laws enacted by the Synod and promulgated by the Patriarch are effective inside the Patriarchal Territory, but for us Maronites outside the territory, the only laws that are currently effective are Liturgical laws. 

V. Historical overview

The reason for this distinction is that, from the very earliest times, Patriarchal power or jurisdiction has been subject to a geographical limitation.  This restriction, known as the Patriarchal Territory, refers to those regions in which the proper rite of the Church is observed and in which the Patriarch has the right to establish ecclesiastical provinces, eparchies and exarchies (CCEO Canon 146, § 1).  Only the Pope can change the Patriarchal Territory (CCEO Canon 146, § 2).  The Patriarchal Territory of the Maronite Church is Lebanon, Syria, the Holy Land, the rest of the Middle East and Egypt.

The Patriarchal jurisdiction goes back to the very earliest times of the Church.  This is clear from Canon 6 of the very first Ecumenical Council, Nicea ! (A.D. 325), which recognized the already-existing jurisdiction of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, all based on a relationship to the Apostle Peter.  This same canon was cited by the Second Vatican Council in its decision to restore the powers of the Eastern Patriarchs as existing in a special relationship to the Western Patriarchate headed by the Roman Pontiff who has primacy as the Successor of Peter (Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches Orientalium Ecclesiarum N. 7,  1.)  Throughout the first two millennia of Christianity, the Eastern Patriarchate and the concept or principle of territoriality evolved side-by-side in the Church.  A similar evolution occurred in the territoriality principle.  In the beginning, the concept was strict territoriality, however, it began to erode almost immediately.  Lateran IV’s recognition of the right of Catholic faithful of different rites to pastoral care in their own liturgical tradition and church hastened the formation of Hierarchies for the various rites where faithful of different rites lived together.  This in turn led directly to the practice of defining the jurisdiction of the Hierarchy by the double standard of territory and rite, resulting in the application of a principle, not of strict, but of qualified territoriality.  The fathers of Vatican II, the heirs of these developments, adopted the Principle of Qualified Territoriality as the norm (Vatican II, Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church Christus Dominus N. 23, 3),  2).  Thus, both territory and membership in a particular Church sui iuris control in both the Latin and Eastern Churches, as is clear even within the Patriarchal Territories, since all of the Eastern Patriarchates overlap to some extent in the Middle East.

VI. The Future

It is true that the authentic Eastern tradition requires a Patriarchal Territory, but it is certainly also true that there is nothing to prevent the expansion of the present Patriarchal Territory or of the jurisdiction of the Patriarch and Synod of Bishops outside the Patriarchal Territory.  The Maronite Patriarchal Territory was already extended in 1741 by Pope Benedict XIV, and the Melkite Patriarchal Territory was extended in 1894 by Pope Leo XIII.  Recent statements from the Vatican indicate that both expansion of the jurisdiction outside the territory and expansion of the territory itself are open possibilities.  Thus, the idea of expanding the Patriarchal Territory to include all erected eparchies wherever they may be, which would include the Eparchy of Saint Maron of Brooklyn and the Eparchy of Our Lady of Lebanon of Los Angeles, is certainly viable.
 
It is necessary for the survival and growth of the Maronite Church to more fully implement the rich image of the Patriarch as “Father and Head” of our Maronite Church.  At the present time, Maronite faithful living outside of the Middle East are more like stepchildren than children of the Patriarch.  To remedy this situation requires the normalization of our relationship to our Father and Head, by preserving our authentic tradition while adapting to a changed and changing world.

http://www.mari.org/JMS/january01/The_Role_Of_The_Patriarch.htm

I've never heard what if anything is being done to extend the patriarchal territories of Eastern bishops, and there are obviously Latin hierarchs essentially in their territory (Jerusalem for instance).  I also believe in some areas in Eastern territories, EC's are put under the authority of a Latin ordinary.  I am aware of no Latin Churches being under the care of an EC bishop.  This I think is particularly an issue for churches in the Middle East given rates of immigration.  It's conceivable in the not-too-distant future that the majority of Melkites will be under Roman and not Melkite control for instance due to immigration in the West.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #34 on: March 13, 2007, 12:51:50 AM »

Papist,

It is not absurd at all.  While recognizing the Popes role as head of the epicopal college and appeal of last resort, the Patriarchs rightly believe the Pope should not be involving himself in the internal governance of the Eastern Churches, and certainly should not be having the Curia do so.  As Vatican II proclaimed, all bishops are vicar of Christ.  If one trys to micromanage others it will only cause problems.  Likewise the Pope should refrain from intervening at the behest of whiny Latin bishops who, rather than educate their flock, would deny Eastern Catholics their rights so their faithful aren't "scandalized".  The OCA and ACROD can happily tell you the results of that.

Fr. Deacon Lance
As Vatican I states, "If anyone should say that that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction, but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world; or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitude  of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over all the faithful, and over each individual one of these, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA"
Many Blessings in Christ
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #35 on: March 13, 2007, 12:53:03 AM »

You crack me up Papist.  Cheesy
Well, its good to see that you have sense of humor about my papist heresies.  Wink
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #36 on: March 13, 2007, 02:05:19 PM »

There is no agreement over whether it is proper for Eastern Catholic bishops to be named cardinals.  One can look at what historically the cardinalate was and say no or what it has evolved into and say yes.  An easier solution would be abolish the Curia or reduce its authority to the Latin Church, and adopt a permanent Synod who would then assist the Pope in his duties as Supreme Pontiff, leaving the Pope free to establish local/regional Synods for the governance of the Latin Church, which Pope Benedict has spoken favorably of..  This is in fact what the Melkites suggested at Vatican II.

It's not just a matter of the Curia, but of papal elections.  As long as the College of Cardinals has the exclusive right to elect the Pope, I would think that Eastern Catholics would definitely need to be represented in the College by their patriarchs and other senior bishops.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #37 on: March 13, 2007, 02:13:58 PM »

It's not just a matter of the Curia, but of papal elections.  As long as the College of Cardinals has the exclusive right to elect the Pope, I would think that Eastern Catholics would definitely need to be represented in the College by their patriarchs and other senior bishops.
I absolutely agree. And what is more, I think that for Catholics, their Catholicity should be more important to them than what sui juri Church they belong to.
Many Blessings in Christ
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #38 on: March 13, 2007, 02:14:31 PM »

It's not just a matter of the Curia, but of papal elections.  As long as the College of Cardinals has the exclusive right to elect the Pope, I would think that Eastern Catholics would definitely need to be represented in the College by their patriarchs and other senior bishops.

But this raises another problem: why should members of another sui juris Church be involved in the election of a Pope?

At the same time, given that Popes are universal over the Roman CC, it would make sense to have patriarchs of Eastern Churches AS patriarchs be part of the election, maybe in a tie breaker role.

The best solution would be for them all to become Orthodox again...oh woops did I say that?  Shocked

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Ian Lazarus
The Main Man!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: AOA
Posts: 1,545


yIjah, Qey' 'oH!


« Reply #39 on: March 13, 2007, 05:36:40 PM »

Quote
The best solution would be for them all to become Orthodox again...oh woops did I say that? 


Preach!

Uh, I mean...

...This is true.
Logged

"For I am With thee, withersoever thou goest"

Joshua 1:9
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #40 on: March 13, 2007, 06:35:16 PM »

But this raises another problem: why should members of another sui juris Church be involved in the election of a Pope?

At the same time, given that Popes are universal over the Roman CC, it would make sense to have patriarchs of Eastern Churches AS patriarchs be part of the election, maybe in a tie breaker role.

The best solution would be for them all to become Orthodox again...oh woops did I say that?  Shocked

Anastasios
aww. But then we would have nothing to argue about. How boring.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2007, 06:35:38 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #41 on: March 13, 2007, 07:34:54 PM »

Well, its good to see that you have sense of humor about my papist heresies.  Wink

Sure.  It's good you believe in your church and don't just say things you think people might want to hear.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #42 on: March 13, 2007, 08:14:16 PM »

Sure.  It's good you believe in your church and don't just say things you think people might want to hear.
Thank you very much.
Many Blessings in Christ
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,063



« Reply #43 on: March 14, 2007, 06:45:04 PM »

Well, regardless, the original post uses wikipedia sources. 
« Last Edit: March 14, 2007, 06:49:35 PM by username! » Logged

serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,339


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #44 on: March 14, 2007, 11:41:01 PM »

If you have better sources maybe you could post them on Wiki? 

I think you could just change the links or just add on...I could be wrong about that though since i've never tried to add anything on ... Smiley
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
nonchal
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #45 on: March 15, 2007, 11:04:48 AM »

ALL THE INFORMATION ON THE ORIGINAL POST CAN BE FOUND IN THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. WIKIPEDIA JUST CONFIRMED IT.
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #46 on: March 15, 2007, 11:13:08 AM »

I think people are just saying that neither of those, even together, presents a full or accurate picture of what the Catholics currently think, act, teach, etc.

You also don't need to post in all caps, but you obviously feel STRONGLY about this.  Why I do not know.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2007, 11:13:49 AM by welkodox » Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #47 on: March 15, 2007, 11:16:48 AM »

Because everybody likes to beat up on ECs...EO, OO, RC...even ECs themselves! Wink
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #48 on: March 15, 2007, 11:18:59 AM »

Thank you sir may I have another!  Wink
Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,063



« Reply #49 on: March 15, 2007, 08:45:21 PM »

My point is
A) online sources don't hold water, if a professor in a university doesn't permit them then that speaks volumes as to their validity.  While they may hold things one could prove true or false, it is better to make an academic study to come to your conclusion rather than the musings of an online article, hint, one man/woman's opinion.
B) I find your original thread very uncharitable, especially in the time of the fast.  I was Byzantine Catholic/Greek Catholic and I still have friends and family that are members of those churches.  While obviously we all don't see eye it that doesn't make one person better than the other.
C) just because I don't agree with your posting doesn't mean I am attacking you.  You can criticize a man's work without criticizing the man, a thing long forgotten. 
D) Leave the Byzcaths' alone. 
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #50 on: March 15, 2007, 11:42:42 PM »

I have to say that most of the Eastern Orthodox Christians on this forum are very fair minded and Charitable. They have expressed these virtues a great deal on this thread. Thank you all so much for not being "anti-latin" even though you disagree with us papists  Wink. You all ROCK!!!! Many blessings in Christ.
Chris
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,063



« Reply #51 on: March 16, 2007, 12:10:56 AM »

As Christians we are to hold the notion that we are to love one another, be respectful, etc... So why should we be anything other than that?  There is a place and time for meaningful debate, but we still must be respectful towards one another. 
Logged

serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,339


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #52 on: March 16, 2007, 11:17:50 PM »

When and where are the right time and place for meaningful debate?  Outside of Lent?  Isn't Lent just one period of the year, and isn't it also a call for us to act the way we do (during Lent) all the time? 

Just curious as to your opinion on this. 

Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,063



« Reply #53 on: March 17, 2007, 03:25:32 AM »

When and where are the right time and place for meaningful debate?  Outside of Lent?  Isn't Lent just one period of the year, and isn't it also a call for us to act the way we do (during Lent) all the time? 

Just curious as to your opinion on this. 



We of course, and my above post on top of yours was sort of towards papist -in a good way.
Perhaps you took that one out of context and perhaps I shold have quoted him.
Anyway, there are obvious differences between the Byzcaths and the Orthodox and there is much more educated and more enlightening ways to discuss it rather than gather a few opinions off the net and tell everyone what the ot of this thread was.  It's offensive and didn't such much different than the tracts the protestant church across the street used to leave in our mailbox when they figured out there was a Catholic across the street (not hard to do, spot the catholic school kid in his/her uniform).  Reminds me of the days when I wasn't allowed to socialize a friend of mine because her dad (who was a public school teacher) told me that Catholics were the lowest scum and ruining the world and I wasn't allowed to talk to his step-daughter because I was Catholic.
I can go on.  My point if you want to demostrate what rule the papacy plays in the various rites the Catholic Church uses it could be done a little better.
And namely, many of the different communities have their own unique story and ongoing story.  Sure they all must agree the pope is the supreme pontiff, the universal leader.   But each one has it's own history of why they came under Rome. 
Anyways
« Last Edit: March 17, 2007, 03:26:28 AM by username! » Logged

serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,339


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #54 on: March 17, 2007, 11:09:08 AM »

Yah...I didn't realize you were talking to Papist.  Sorry if I intruded onto your discussion. 

I sympathise with some of the experiences you've mentioned.  Sometimes, however, we tend to take personal experience out of context and put the blame on a bigger entity, which is never going to really "solve the problem," if you will.

Anyway, I agree with your general point.  Each group has its own unique history and how it came under Rome. 

My question is:  Is this still the best option for these churches?  I know Anastasios made a little quip earlier about everyone just going back to being Orthodox, but seriously...why not?

If these groups are not happy with Rome and the issues can't get resolved...?

Be it because of authoritative reasons, canonical reasons, pastoral reasons, etc.

I know its easier said than done...but that's part of the point of this forum.  To discuss ideas and opinions.   
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,063



« Reply #55 on: March 17, 2007, 02:25:35 PM »

Serb, I am going to bow out respectfully and not answer the question you had about the Eastern Catholic Churches.  PM me and I can tell you some books to read that gives a good history.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #56 on: March 20, 2007, 10:35:30 AM »

Yah...I didn't realize you were talking to Papist.  Sorry if I intruded onto your discussion. 

I sympathise with some of the experiences you've mentioned.  Sometimes, however, we tend to take personal experience out of context and put the blame on a bigger entity, which is never going to really "solve the problem," if you will.

Anyway, I agree with your general point.  Each group has its own unique history and how it came under Rome. 

My question is:  Is this still the best option for these churches?  I know Anastasios made a little quip earlier about everyone just going back to being Orthodox, but seriously...why not?

If these groups are not happy with Rome and the issues can't get resolved...?

Be it because of authoritative reasons, canonical reasons, pastoral reasons, etc.

I know its easier said than done...but that's part of the point of this forum.  To discuss ideas and opinions.   
You raise an interesting point. If these Churches don't agree with Catholic teaching regarding the Papacy, why continue to commune with the Catholic Church? I mean, I wish that everyone would join the Catholic Church because I believe that it was founded by Jesus Christ, but I don't believe that people who do not confess the Catholic faith should remain in communion with the Catholic Church.  Sad
Many Blessings in Christ,
Chris
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #57 on: March 20, 2007, 10:45:37 AM »

Why do Roman Catholics who don't accept the papal dogmas remain in the church?

I'm sure there are various reasons.  We all have our own priorities.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #58 on: March 20, 2007, 10:49:35 AM »

Why do Roman Catholics who don't accept the papal dogmas remain in the church?

I'm sure there are various reasons.  We all have our own priorities.
I know this. I just find it difficult to deal with sometimes. Most Catholics, whether eastern or western, in the United states, disagree with some point of Catholic teaching. As a card carrying Papist, I find it very disturbing.
Many Blessings in Christ,
Chris
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,063



« Reply #59 on: March 21, 2007, 03:45:29 PM »

Why do Roman Catholics who don't accept the papal dogmas remain in the church?

I'm sure there are various reasons.  We all have our own priorities.

Well, re-instating yourself would be accepting papal primacy (which means accepting his dogmas) and confession.  It isn't like you get a letter in the mail saying you're excommunicated.  When I got Christmated Orthodox the Catholic Church never sent me a letter of excommunication Wink

It's right there smack in the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church (and is binding upon all Roman Catholics regardless if they are Latin rite or Byzantine rite) that you must recognize the pope as supreme leader, infallible and accept ALL his teachings.  If you don't, then you are dissident. 
Same for Orthodox, if we aren't faithful to the Deposit of Faith and our Bishop who rightly dispenses the word of truth, and accept the teachings of the church then we have removed ourselves from the church. 
We're not protestants we don't get to pick and choose parts of Christianity to suit our secular/humanistic "me" attitudes.
Logged

pbyers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #60 on: March 25, 2007, 12:08:23 PM »

I found an interview with the Maronite Patriarch that says the following about the role of the patriarch outside their territory:
...

I don't think these quotes are from the Maronite patriarch -- why would he say, e.g., "but for us Maronites outside the territory, the only laws that are currently effective are Liturgical laws"?

Quote
V. Historical overview

The reason for this distinction is that, from the very earliest times, Patriarchal power or jurisdiction has been subject to a geographical limitation. This restriction, known as the Patriarchal Territory, refers to those regions in which the proper rite of the Church is observed and in which the Patriarch has the right to establish ecclesiastical provinces, eparchies and exarchies 

The problem with this is that the patriarch of Rome (the pope) does not follow it himself.

For example, does the pope want to have the final say over who can be appointed as Melkite bishop in the US? You won't me complaining -- just as long as the pope asks permission from the Melkite patriarch to appoint a Latin bishop in Lebanon.
Logged
pbyers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #61 on: March 25, 2007, 12:23:11 PM »

Anyway, I agree with your general point.  Each group has its own unique history and how it came under Rome. 

My question is:  Is this still the best option for these churches?  I know Anastasios made a little quip earlier about everyone just going back to being Orthodox, but seriously...why not?

If these groups are not happy with Rome and the issues can't get resolved...?

Be it because of authoritative reasons, canonical reasons, pastoral reasons, etc.

I know its easier said than done...but that's part of the point of this forum.  To discuss ideas and opinions.   

Well, I don't want to try to speak for all the EC churches (or even one of them) as to why they don't go back to being Orthodox. But since you brought up that hypothetical situation, let me ask you this: if one of them did decide to break off communion with Rome and become Orthodox, would it be allowed to continue as a separate church (in full communion with the other Orthodox churches) or would it be required to merge with its Orthodox counterpart (e.g. the Romanian Catholic Church merging with the Romanian Orthodox Church)?

This is not a rhetorical question.

God bless,
PJ
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #62 on: March 25, 2007, 01:17:10 PM »

My opinion is that ff it were in the diaspora it could probably be an autonomous jurisdiction separate for the short run from its counterpart.  In the homeland though, where there are not usually multiple jurisdictions (this happens sometimes now but it is a grave canonical issue and very sinful) it would have to merge, perhaps though as a stavrophegial association (i.e. an administration distinct from the rest and under the primate directly).  It is just too irregular to have multiple jurisdictions in the same territory, although in the diaspora this is already common it could probably be stomached a bit better (in the short term--we are trying to eliminate multiple jurisdictions anyway).
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
pbyers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #63 on: March 25, 2007, 03:21:29 PM »

I guess the way I asked that question was a little bit of a false dichotomy. Maybe a better way to state it would have been: if the Romanian Catholic Church (just as an example) decided to break communion with Rome and become Orthodox, would it  ... ?
(1) be required to merge with the Romanian Orthodox Church
(2) become an autonomous Orthodox church
(3) become an autocephalous Orthodox church

My opinion is that ff it were in the diaspora it could probably be an autonomous jurisdiction separate for the short run from its counterpart.  In the homeland though, where there are not usually multiple jurisdictions (this happens sometimes now but it is a grave canonical issue and very sinful) it would have to merge, perhaps though as a stavrophegial association (i.e. an administration distinct from the rest and under the primate directly).  It is just too irregular to have multiple jurisdictions in the same territory, although in the diaspora this is already common it could probably be stomached a bit better (in the short term--we are trying to eliminate multiple jurisdictions anyway).

I can understand where you're coming from with regard to "multiple jurisdictions in the same territory". But having said that, it seems to me that this means an EC Church would not, in fact, gain greater independence by going Orthodox (which seemed to be what serb1389 was imply by his question) and that they might even lose some degree of independence.

Just my thoughts, of course.
-PJ
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,339


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #64 on: March 25, 2007, 04:40:35 PM »

Well, I don't want to try to speak for all the EC churches (or even one of them) as to why they don't go back to being Orthodox. But since you brought up that hypothetical situation, let me ask you this: if one of them did decide to break off communion with Rome and become Orthodox, would it be allowed to continue as a separate church (in full communion with the other Orthodox churches) or would it be required to merge with its Orthodox counterpart (e.g. the Romanian Catholic Church merging with the Romanian Orthodox Church)?

This is not a rhetorical question.

God bless,
PJ

In answer to your original question:

I woulde say that yes, the Romanian CATHOLIC church would have to merge with its ORTHODOX counterpart, especially if it is in the SAME COUNTRY.  Like Anastasios mentioned, the Orthodox church would probobly make every effort to not create ANOTHER Romanian church, inside of Romania. 

Quote
I can understand where you're coming from with regard to "multiple jurisdictions in the same territory". But having said that, it seems to me that this means an EC Church would not, in fact, gain greater independence by going Orthodox (which seemed to be what serb1389 was imply by his question) and that they might even lose some degree of independence.

Maybe they would lose their independence. 

I could always say that anything is better than living underneath the pope, but that would just be uncouth.  But hey, some people are at that point. 

The problem with your premise is that some people would not want to relinquish their power.  And by some people I mean some bishops/lay people.  So, that seems to be more of a personal problem than a pan-church problem. 

If a church wants to be within the envelope of truth, and does not want to be dealing with Rome...well then there are sacrifices which should/must be made.  If there is a problem with humility in order to have a better church overall....then people don't really want to change, they just want to complain. 

Those are definately some more "blunt" thoughts, but that's all I can come up with right now.  Maybe i'll think of something more constructive in the afternoon. 

Let me know your thoughts of what I posted above.   Smiley
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #65 on: March 25, 2007, 05:44:19 PM »

I would assume that it would have a quasi-autonomous status until they are reabsorbed into the Orthodox Church.  It would not become autochepalous nor do I see any reason for that to occur as it would be the same ethnicity, same territory, etc.  At the most, it might be treated like ROCOR in the unification of the Russian Church.  They reunited, but maintain seperate heiarchy letting the details slowly work out over time.
Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
Starlight
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of USA (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
Posts: 1,537


« Reply #66 on: March 25, 2007, 08:58:05 PM »

My opinion is that ff it were in the diaspora it could probably be an autonomous jurisdiction separate for the short run from its counterpart.  In the homeland though, where there are not usually multiple jurisdictions (this happens sometimes now but it is a grave canonical issue and very sinful) it would have to merge, perhaps though as a stavrophegial association (i.e. an administration distinct from the rest and under the primate directly).  It is just too irregular to have multiple jurisdictions in the same territory, although in the diaspora this is already common it could probably be stomached a bit better (in the short term--we are trying to eliminate multiple jurisdictions anyway).

Absolutely agree. In the diaspora, the situation may remain with an autonomous status even in the long run, at least until re-unification of all jurisdictions in the country. So that could be this variant:
At the most, it might be treated like ROCOR in the unification of the Russian Church.  They reunited, but maintain seperate heiarchy letting the details slowly work out over time.

If a church wants to be within the envelope of truth, and does not want to be dealing with Rome...well then there are sacrifices which should/must be made.  If there is a problem with humility in order to have a better church overall....then people don't really want to change, they just want to complain. 

Exactly!!!

Really excellent corollaries, guys.

Just my $0.02. If hypothetically, some Eastern Catholic Church, would include 15+% of the nation would exist in the country without major Orthodox presence – for example less then 1%  of population, then autocephalous status may become a matter of a couple of years. Or if Roman Catholic dioceses of some country would go Orthodox, the same scenario appears applicable.
Well, I really would more then enjoy to see that unparalleled return to Orthodoxy happening! I have heard that some circles within Eastern Rite Catholics in Ukraine cherish such plans / ideas.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2007, 09:04:53 PM by Starlight » Logged
pbyers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #67 on: March 26, 2007, 09:25:25 AM »

it seems to me that this means an EC Church would not, in fact, gain greater independence by going Orthodox (which seemed to be what serb1389 was imply by his question) and that they might even lose some degree of independence.

In answer to your original question:

I woulde say that yes, the Romanian CATHOLIC church would have to merge with its ORTHODOX counterpart, especially if it is in the SAME COUNTRY.  Like Anastasios mentioned, the Orthodox church would probobly make every effort to not create ANOTHER Romanian church, inside of Romania. 

Maybe they would lose their independence. 

Sorry if a misunderstood the direction your question was heading. (While I'm at it, sorry for my awful grammar.) It seems that we agree more than I realized.


I could always say that anything is better than living underneath the pope, but that would just be uncouth.  But hey, some people are at that point. 

...

If a church wants to be within the envelope of truth, and does not want to be dealing with Rome...well then there are sacrifices which should/must be made.  If there is a problem with humility in order to have a better church overall....then people don't really want to change, they just want to complain. 


Oh, I think I can understand where you're coming from. Basically you're saying they should do what's right, not what's easy.

The problem with your premise is that some people would not want to relinquish their power.  And by some people I mean some bishops/lay people.  So, that seems to be more of a personal problem than a pan-church problem. 

I'm afraid I don't really know to what premise you are referring.

God bless,
PJ
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #68 on: March 26, 2007, 01:19:02 PM »

I don't think these quotes are from the Maronite patriarch -- why would he say, e.g., "but for us Maronites outside the territory, the only laws that are currently effective are Liturgical laws"?

You're correct, it was the Chancellor of the Eparchy of Saint Maron of Brooklyn, New York that was speaking.  My mistake there.  He was of course speaking from the perspective of being a Maronite Catholic outside the Maronite patriarchal territory.
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,339


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #69 on: March 26, 2007, 07:17:27 PM »

I can understand where you're coming from with regard to "multiple jurisdictions in the same territory". But having said that, it seems to me that this means an EC Church would not, in fact, gain greater independence by going Orthodox (which seemed to be what serb1389 was imply by his question) and that they might even lose some degree of independence.

Just my thoughts, of course.
-PJ

This is what you said.  Now for your question: 

Quote
Quote from: serb1389 on Yesterday at 04:40:35 PM
The problem with your premise is that some people would not want to relinquish their power.  And by some people I mean some bishops/lay people.  So, that seems to be more of a personal problem than a pan-church problem.
 

Quote
I'm afraid I don't really know to what premise you are referring.

I realize now that my statement was probobly confusing since it didn't link to...well, anything.  What I wanted to say was that your original "premise" is independence and this is the question at hand.  The problem with this independence is that bishops/lay people would not want to relinquish power in order for the church to be where it needs to be, or where it should be. 

I hope this is less confusing now.  I'd actualy love to hear what you think about this.  I know where I stand on "power hungry" individuals, but its always good to explore new options. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #70 on: March 27, 2007, 01:28:49 PM »

Well, I don't want to try to speak for all the EC churches (or even one of them) as to why they don't go back to being Orthodox. But since you brought up that hypothetical situation, let me ask you this: if one of them did decide to break off communion with Rome and become Orthodox, would it be allowed to continue as a separate church (in full communion with the other Orthodox churches) or would it be required to merge with its Orthodox counterpart (e.g. the Romanian Catholic Church merging with the Romanian Orthodox Church)?

This is not a rhetorical question.

God bless,
PJ

Fr. John, during the commentary on EWTN during the Papal visit to the Phanar I believe it was Fr. Ron Roberson of CNEWA who stated that in the case of reconciliation the Eastern Catholic Churches would go back to their counterpart churches if they had one; their purpose having been served, there would be no reason or justification for them to continue on as separate entities.
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,339


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #71 on: March 27, 2007, 07:23:57 PM »

Fr. John, during the commentary on EWTN during the Papal visit to the Phanar I believe it was Fr. Ron Roberson of CNEWA who stated that in the case of reconciliation the Eastern Catholic Churches would go back to their counterpart churches if they had one; their purpose having been served, there would be no reason or justification for them to continue on as separate entities.

I totally forgot that he said this.  I think that this is a great answer to the dilema.  Especially if there ever is reconciliation. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
A Sombra
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 112


« Reply #72 on: May 23, 2007, 02:26:04 AM »

  The most obvious exampleof total Papal jurisdiction over the Uniate churches is the fact that the only ruling Bishop in the Roman and Eastern Catholic churches is the Pope of Rome; all other bishops are simply vicar bishops, beholden to Roma for "the final word."
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #73 on: October 13, 2008, 10:26:03 AM »

Probably not since most Eastern Catholics here probably doubt your motives for posting this stuff on an Orthodox website. This thread seems to be an inter-Catholic thread and not an Orthodox/Catholic debate thread.

yes, it is, as we are offered the example of the "Eastern Catholic sui juris churches" as examples of what the papacy is all about.  I think we should pass on the deal. although some who are part of the deal, I admit, like Ryondish and Apotheum, whose understanding of the issue almost makes it attractive.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2008, 10:30:19 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #74 on: October 13, 2008, 10:39:28 AM »

Fr. John, during the commentary on EWTN during the Papal visit to the Phanar I believe it was Fr. Ron Roberson of CNEWA who stated that in the case of reconciliation the Eastern Catholic Churches would go back to their counterpart churches if they had one; their purpose having been served, there would be no reason or justification for them to continue on as separate entities.

I totally forgot that he said this.  I think that this is a great answer to the dilema.  Especially if there ever is reconciliation. 


Then how is it that the Vatican has three (formerly four) patriarchs in Antioch, two (fomerly three) in Alexandria (who, unlike the other hierarchs submitted to the Vatican, doesn't get to keep the title of his Orthodox counterpart, i.e. "Pope"), two in Jerusalem.  Why are the Ruthenians not connected to the Ukrainians?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,890


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #75 on: October 13, 2008, 01:34:52 PM »

The same way the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) have their own patriarchs in all the ancient patriarchates.  The Ruthenians are not connected to the Ukrainians becasue we don't want to be.  We are not Ukrainians.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #76 on: October 13, 2008, 01:56:00 PM »

The same way the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) have their own patriarchs in all the ancient patriarchates.  The Ruthenians are not connected to the Ukrainians becasue we don't want to be.  We are not Ukrainians.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The Palestinians aren't Latins either, but yet there they are in the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

And even if you aren't Ukrainians, so what?  We are repeatedly told by the apologists for the Vatican that the Church is not based on nationality.  That's why, we are told, the Orthodox Church is not the One Catholic Church, and not a church at all, and the Vatican is the Universal Church.

In the early Church, there wasn't a Hebrew patriarch of Antioch, a Greek Patriarch of Antioch and a Syriac Patriarch of Antioch.  There was the Orthodox Catholic Patriarch of Antioch.  And as the career of St. Meletios of Antioch shows, Rome didn't appoint him, nor confirm him.

The difference at the basis of the distinction between Brest and Uzhhorod is the Poles ran the former, and the Hungarians the latter.

Before Uzhhorod, is there any history of a separate metropolia besides that of Kiev?  And I don't mean the fact that St.  Methodios evangelized the area: your Latin friends drove him out, suppressed the Slavonic Liturgy and imposed the filioque.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,890


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #77 on: October 13, 2008, 03:55:05 PM »

There are indeed Palestinians who are Latin just as there are Hebrews who are Latin as well.

As for your statement: "That's why, we are told, the Orthodox Church is not the One Catholic Church, and not a church at all, and the Vatican is the Universal Church."  The Catholic Church teaches that she is the One Church and that the Orthodox Churches are true particular Churches with valid sacraments.  So while you are not in communion with us, we recognize you to be part of the One Church.

The Eastern Catholic Churches are counterparts of the Orthodox Churches they left, thus Melkite and Syrian Patriarchs of Antioch, plus the Maronite Patriarch, who has no counter part among the Orthodox.  I see Eastern Catholic Patriarchs complained about all the time, yet never a word about the Armenian Patriarchs of Constantinople or Jerusalem.

Although having nothing to do with Mukachevo, a second Ukrainian Metropolia existed at Halych.  The Bishop of Mukachevo was confirmed by the Patriarch of Constantinople and ordained by the Metropolitans of Alba Iulia in Transylvania and was never subject to Kyiv or Halych/Lviv. 
 
As to the Union of Uzhorod, please learn the historical facts.  The Hungarian lords, who were Calvanist, were opposed to the union, they ran nothing.  The only Hungarian involved in the affair was the Latin Bishop of Eger, who rather quietly accepted the union of the Rusyn priests and did not even inform Rome.  The Rusyn priests were concerned with stopping the Calvinists from making further inroads and having the same rights as the Latin priests, i.e. tax exemption and the right to collect the tithe from the parish rather than have it go to the local Latin priest.

Fr. Deacon Lance



 
« Last Edit: October 13, 2008, 03:56:51 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #78 on: October 13, 2008, 05:31:26 PM »

There are indeed Palestinians who are Latin just as there are Hebrews who are Latin as well.

The Patriarchate came with the Crusaders.  Neither Palestinian nor Hebrew are native to it, nor is it native to Jerusalem.

Quote
As for your statement: "That's why, we are told, the Orthodox Church is not the One Catholic Church, and not a church at all, and the Vatican is the Universal Church."  The Catholic Church teaches that she is the One Church and that the Orthodox Churches are true particular Churches with valid sacraments.  So while you are not in communion with us, we recognize you to be part of the One Church.

Sorry, Christ is not divided. We are not "part" of the Church: We are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and not, as I have seen repeated ad nauseum, like a puzzle with the edges but the middle missing.

Quote
The Eastern Catholic Churches are counterparts of the Orthodox Churches they left, thus Melkite and Syrian Patriarchs of Antioch, plus the Maronite Patriarch, who has no counter part among the Orthodox.  I see Eastern Catholic Patriarchs complained about all the time, yet never a word about the Armenian Patriarchs of Constantinople or Jerusalem.

Yes, I know. And yes, I believe that means something.

Quote
Although having nothing to do with Mukachevo, a second Ukrainian Metropolia existed at Halych.  The Bishop of Mukachevo was confirmed by the Patriarch of Constantinople and ordained by the Metropolitans of Alba Iulia in Transylvania and was never subject to Kyiv or Halych/Lviv.


If it was Slavic and Orthodox (and ALL Eastern Rite Slavs were until Brest, the Croatians being an exception not in play here), I guarentee it was under Kiev.  Mukachevo was under Przemysl, which was a suffragan of Lviv.

From "The Catholic Encyclopedia" (for those who don't know, Lemberg is the German for Lviv):

Quote
After the conversion of the Ruthenians in this region to Christianity, the Bishopric of Halicz, suffragan to Kiev, was established for their benefit between 1152 and 1180. Halicz had been made a metropolitan see in 1345 by John Calecas, Patriarch of Constantinople, but in 1347 it was again placed under the jurisdiction of Kiev, at the request of the Grand Duke Simeon of Moscow. Its metropolitan rank was restored to Halicz only after the Polish occupation of the province about 1371; it had four suffragans: Kulm, Przemysl, Turof, and Vladimir. In 1414 King Ladislaus, for some unknown reason, transferred the Latin See of Halicz to Leopol, and suppressed the Ruthenian metropolitan See of Halicz. The see was subsequently administered by vicars of the Metropolitan of Kiev until 28 October, 1539, when it was restored as a simple bishopric. Macarius Tuczapsti, the titular, next year changed his residence to Lemberg and took the combined titles of Halicz and Lemberg, which his successors have borne, adding those of Kamenets and Podolia, when their jurisdiction extended so far. With the establishment of the Jesuits in this county began the reform of the extremely ignorant schismatic clergy, who gradually turned towards Rome. In 1597 the Bishop of Lemberg, the celebrated Gideon Balaban, brought his diocese back to Catholicism, but afterwards, through his ambition, he relapsed into schism, and with him nearly all his subjects. A council held at Lemberg in October, 1629, laboured in vain for the conversion of the diocese, and it was not until the end of the seventeenth century that Bishop Joseph Czumlanski embraced the cause of union, secretly at first in 1677, and then openly in 1700. After Joseph came Barlaam Czeptyski (1710-5) and Athanasius Czeptyski (1715-46), who, being promoted to the metropolitan See of Kiev, retained that of Lemberg with it. This example was followed by Leo Louis Czeptyski (1749-79), when he became metropolitan in 1762.

Under Peter Bielanski (1779-98) the Diocese of Lemberg, to which were united those of Halicz and Kamenets, fortunately became the possession of Austria, whose government took in hand the education of the clergy, who were poor and so ignorant as hardly to know their own rite.Maria Theresa had students sent to the seminary established at Vienna for the Hungarian Uniats. Joseph II turned the Dominican convent into a seminary for Ruthenians, adding to it the church and the garden, and soon the Ruthenian students had places reserved for them in the theological faculty of the city. On 22 February, 1807, Pius VII, by the Bull "In universalis ecclesiæ regimine", withdrew Lemberg from the metropolitan jurisdiction of Kiev and made it a metropolitan see, with Kulm and Przemysl as suffragans. The Diocese of Kulm was dependent on Lemberg until 1837, when it was made immediately subject to the Holy See until its suppression by Russia. In its place another suffragan diocese, that of Stanislaov, was given to Lemberg in 1856. The Emperor of Austria obtained from Rome the right to nominate the metropolitan and his suffragans, while the metropolitan was authorized to confirm their nomination and to consecrate them, as had formerly been granted to the Metropolitan of Kiev by Clement VIII. The Habsburg monarchy has seriously taken up the task of developing education among the clergy, and of putting them upon the same footing as the Latin clergy by giving them the same political rights, and lastly of teaching the Ruthenian language in schools -- a point as to which the Poles had previously cared little. Between the Poles and Ruthenians, indeed, there has always existed a certain hostility, which, during the nineteenth century, resulted in violent controversies, and eventually, in 1862, necessitated the intervention of the Holy See. In addition, the young Ruthenian clergy, with their exaggerated ideas of their rite and nationality, have accentuated their peculiarities and fostered the spirit of schism together with an excessive affection for Russia. Thus, they have shown an inclination to return to the primitive Græco-Slavic Rite, and to suppress the modifications which in former times had been -- wrongly perhaps -- introduced into the Liturgy, but which, in the minds of the people, have now become to a certain extent identified with Catholicism. Hence continual religious troubles have arisen, and indeed numerous defections. The reform of the Basilian monks inaugurated by Leo XIII has in part remedied these fatal tendencies, which, however, are still the chief danger threatening the Uniat Catholics of this archdiocese.


Quote
As to the Union of Uzhorod, please learn the historical facts.  The Hungarian lords, who were Calvanist, were opposed to the union, they ran nothing.

Just the kingdom.

Quote
The only Hungarian involved in the affair was the Latin Bishop of Eger, who rather quietly accepted the union of the Rusyn priests and did not even inform Rome.  The Rusyn priests were concerned with stopping the Calvinists from making further inroads and having the same rights as the Latin priests, i.e. tax exemption and the right to collect the tithe from the parish rather than have it go to the local Latin priest.


And herein lies the real motive for the "union."



 
[/quote]
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,890


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #79 on: October 13, 2008, 06:32:29 PM »

The Patriarchate came with the Crusaders.  Neither Palestinian nor Hebrew are native to it, nor is it native to Jerusalem.

True, but that does not change that fact that today there are both Palestinians and Hebrews that are Latin Catholics that need a diocese and bishop.  Whether that bishop should be titled Patriarch of Jeusalem is certainly debatable.  The Melkites certainly don't agree with it.

Sorry, Christ is not divided. We are not "part" of the Church: We are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and not, as I have seen repeated ad nauseum, like a puzzle with the edges but the middle missing.

You stated incorrect information about how the Catholic Church views the Orthodox Church.  I realize you don't agree with the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, but please don't state we don't consider the Orthodox Churches to be true Churches.

Yes, I know. And yes, I believe that means something.

You'll have to expand that comment.

If it was Slavic and Orthodox (and ALL Eastern Rite Slavs were until Brest, the Croatians being an exception not in play here), I guarentee it was under Kiev.  Mukachevo was under Przemysl, which was a suffragan of Lviv.
From "The Catholic Encyclopedia" (for those who don't know, Lemberg is the German for Lviv):...

Sorry, but you are wrong.  It is historically verifiable the Monks of the Monastery of St. Nicholas in Mukachevo elected one of their own to the see of Mukachevo.  This Monastery was Stauropegial and the elected sought confirmation from Constantinople and was ordained by the Metropolitans of Alba Iulia, not Halych or Kyiv.  The Catholic Encyclopedia is dated and has been superceded by further research.

Just the kingdom.
They may have been the Apostolic Kings but they had nothing to do with the Rusyns or their Church until after the union.  The local Hungarian Counts were Calvinists and were actively interfering with the Church and seeking to turn the Rusyns into Calvinists.  In any case, Austrian-Hungarian crown was not involved with the Union of Uzhorod, as the Polish crown was in the Union of Brest.

And herein lies the real motive for the "union."

Sure it was a real motive.  They were in a Catholic Kingdom seeking to survive and find protection from Calvinist overlords who were making them miserable and attempting to eradicate their faith.  In union with Rome they saw a way to protect their Eastern traditions from both the Calvinists and the Latins.  I see survival excuses offered for Orthodox collaboration with the Communists all the time here.

Fr. Deacon Lance
« Last Edit: October 13, 2008, 06:54:28 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.247 seconds with 108 queries.