Exclusion of Eastern Catholic Churches from the Ecumenical Dialogue

[Alexius]

I have attended several Ukrainian Catholic parishes and get mixed feelings. One parish is the most Latinized parish I have ever been to complete with Rosary and no iconostasis, yet in the service books, the filioque was scribbled over in blue ink! At the major cathedral for the UGCC in Philadelphia, the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (apparently some still accept this dogma), their bookstore utilizes many Orthodox printings and doctrinal manuals, so I'm not sure what to think...it seems the customs and teachings vary from parish to parish and this needs to be straightened up somehow.

[Irish Melkite]

George,

I started a thread to answer your request for a list of EC Churches - it's likely more than anyone wants to know, but past experience has convinced me that posting tidbits generates questions that can often be answered more readily and in a more logical format up-front. The formating slowed me down a bit, so I didn't get to finish - will do so tonight. But, there should be enough there to answer your basic question.

Many years,

Neil

[ozgeorge]

George,

I started a thread to answer your request for a list of EC Churches - it's likely more than anyone wants to know, but past experience has convinced me that posting tidbits generates questions that can often be answered more readily and in a more logical format up-front. The formating slowed me down a bit, so I didn't get to finish - will do so tonight. But, there should be enough there to answer your basic question.

Many years,

Neil

Thanks Neil! I was actually reading them as you posted them!
That thread is a wonderful effort, and a valuable resource! I have taken the liberty of tagging it (see *this thread* about tags.)
George

[Peter J]

Dear Father Ambrose,

And here is an interesting take on this Melkite Catholic site in the US. It goes so far as to

1) label Pius IX' s declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception "imprudent"

2) declare that the Immaculate Concdeption makes no sense to Eastern Catholics

3) deny that the Pope can declare any infallible dogma. Only an Ecumenical Council has that authority.

It seems to me that Melkites sometimes understand a defined dogma in a very different way than the typical Latin Catholic understands it.

For example, here's the way I see number 2: the dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary had no "stain of original sin". Melkites, however, believe that no one has a "stain of original sin" (i.e. that original sin isn't a "stain") -- so for them, what's the point of defining that Mary didn't have one? (If I'm oversimplifying this, I hope that Irish Melkite or another Melkite poster will correct me.)

With regard to number 3 and the "Melkite denial of Papal infallibility" (which has mentioned in a number of posts on this thread) ... well, I haven't actually seen any explanatory statements by Archbishop Zoghby or any other Melkite representative; but please permit me to share a few thoughts of my own.

In his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk Cardinal Newman said (among other things -- he was very prolific on the subject of papal infallibility):

I will not pass from this question of History without a word about Pope Honorius, whose condemnation by anathema in the Sixth Ecumenical Council, is certainly a strong primâ facie argument against the Pope's doctrinal infallibility.
...

Now I observe that, whereas the Vatican Council has determined that the Pope is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedrâ , and that, in order to speak ex cathedrâ , he must at least speak "as exercising the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, defining, by virtue of his Apostolical authority, a doctrine whether of faith or of morals for the acceptance of the universal Church" {316} (though Mr. Gladstone strangely says, p. 34, "There is no established or accepted definition of the phrase ex cathedrâ "), from this Pontifical and dogmatic explanation of the phrase it follows, that, whatever Honorius said in answer to Sergius, and whatever he held, his words were not ex cathedrâ , and therefore did not proceed from his infallibility.

I say so first, because he could not fulfil the above conditions of an ex cathedrâ utterance, if he did not actually mean to fulfil them. The question is unlike the question about the Sacraments; external and positive acts, whether material actions or formal words, speak for themselves. Teaching on the other hand has no sacramental visible signs; it is an opus operantis , and mainly a question of intention.

Whatever else Catholics are required to agree with, we can be sure that they are not required to agree with Cardinal Newman's understanding of infallibility.

I agree (of course) with Newman's statement that Pope Honorius was not speaking ex cathedra. But I am not at all convinced by Newman's claim that, in general, a pope cannot act in "the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians" without intending to do so, and that it is "mainly a question of intention". Hence, I think it possible that a pope could make an ex cathedra statement without realizing he was doing so.

Conversely, I see no reason why a pope couldn't think he was "exercising the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians" when he in fact was not, and thus think he was making an infallible statement when he in fact was not.

I hope this helps,
Peter.


P.S. Going back to number 1 (Melkites labeling Pius IX' s declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception "imprudent") it is worth noting that even Cardinal Newman, although he believed in papal infallibility prior to Vatican I, nevertheless opposed its being defined as a dogma. In one letter, in fact, he said "A heavy retribution still may await the perpetrators of this act.”

[JoeS]

For example, here's the way I see number 2: the dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary had no "stain of original sin". Melkites, however, believe that no one has a "stain of original sin" (i.e. that original sin isn't a "stain") -- so for them, what's the point of defining that Mary didn't have one? (If I'm oversimplifying this, I hope that Irish Melkite or another Melkite poster will correct me.)

This pretty much parallels Eastern Orthodoxy as well. This "stain" is foreign to us also.

JoeS

[Irish Melkite]

Thanks Neil! I was actually reading them as you posted them!
That thread is a wonderful effort, and a valuable resource! I have taken the liberty of tagging it (see *this thread* about tags.)
George

George,

Thanks for the kind words. I was hoping to get through the Rites tonight, but the Byzantine wore me out by the time I managed to get the formatting in place. With luck, I'll finish up tomorrow night. The Chaldean and Maronite Rites are fairly straightforward, so the formatting will be easier. The pieces beyond that are primarily straight text - need to update an odd or end, here or there, but it should be fairly straightforward.

Many years,

Neil

[Irish Melkite]

George,

Unless there's anything anyone would like to suggest be added or questions that anyone has, I think I've about exhausted the topic of all the trivia one might care to know about the EC/OC sui iuris Churches

Many years,

Neil

[rakovsky]

Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical Patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)

[Αριστοκλής]

Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical Patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)

The standard answer:

Second Council of Lyons Failed 'reunion Council', 1274 AD
    Motivated by a desire of popes to gain recognition of primacy and by a desire of emperors to receive material and martial aide. Emperor Michael basically compelled the few Orthodox bishops in attendance to rubber-stamp papal claims. Rejected throughout the East and regarded as meaningless. Emperor Michael's sister stated: 'Better my brother's empire should perish than the purity of the Orthodox faith.' Repudiated by Michael's successor.

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txw/orthcoun.htm

[Michał]

This has resulted in 30 Orthodox delegates - two from each of the 15 autocephalous Churches (minus the OCA.)

Isn't the number of the autocephalous Churches (minus the OCA) 14?

[ialmisry]

Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical Patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)

The standard answer:

Second Council of Lyons Failed 'reunion Council', 1274 AD
    Motivated by a desire of popes to gain recognition of primacy and by a desire of emperors to receive material and martial aide. Emperor Michael basically compelled the few Orthodox bishops in attendance to rubber-stamp papal claims. Rejected throughout the East and regarded as meaningless. Emperor Michael's sister stated: 'Better my brother's empire should perish than the purity of the Orthodox faith.' Repudiated by Michael's successor.

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txw/orthcoun.htm

Yes, I am always amused how the Vatican's partisans always are worried about our Caesaro-papist speck, while bagging us over the head with their log.

Remember: the filioque was introduced by the Visigoth king, and the Frankish emperor forced its insertion at Rome (after Rome had spent several centuries condemning it).

Why don't they consider Constantinople IV 879 as Ecumenical, as it had representatives of the patriarchs. Btw, Constantinople I had no representative from Rome, and no bishop in the West.  Just bishops from Greece (at the time under Rome's jurisdiction).

Of course, the deeper problem that our friends have,and you pointed out, is the Orthodox Church as a whole accepted the Councils.  The bishops do not have the power to sell us out.

[ialmisry]

But we forget that they could be a major embarrassment to the Roman Catholics at such events because they would highlight the lack of unity in the Catholic Church on key doctrines.  The Melkites or the Ukrainians could proclaim, as is their wont, that they accept nothing beyond the faith which they professed at the time of their union with Rome.  This is a right guaranteed to them by their Agreements of Union with the Vatican. 

In other words they could deny papal infallibility, papal supremacy, purgatory, the RC Councils after the 7 Ecumenical Councils, etc.     Imagine the publicity that this lack of unity would grab in the religious press if it were brought to light at a Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical meeting!

A bigger issue would be the presence of married priest:

On a similar note (maybe deserving of its own the thread), the Ukrainains are coming out with their answer to the CCC (which btw, goes out of its way to include stuff from Eastern Liturgies.  I don't recall if it uses anything from the non-Roman Western rites (Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Gallican, etc.)

The first worldwide catechism for the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is set to transform catechesis throughout the rite. Six years in the making, the historic book is almost finished and will be published in 2010.

Sister Luiza Ciupa, whose work at the Catechetical Institute in Lviv, western Ukraine, has been vital in the Church’s recovery from 70 years of communist atheism, told Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) that the catechism was intended for Ukrainian Greek Catholics around the world. “Because this will be the book of our faith for our Church and will unify our faith it will be translated into at least six languages,” she said.

As well as Ukrainian, the catechism is due to be published in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian and Polish, with versions in other languages possible.

http://www.churchinneed.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5875&news_iv_ctrl=1001

[ialmisry]

Russian Catholic Church?

Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church?


Related:
Coptic Catholic Church (unsure which --EO or OO-- church this is counter to, unless both).

LOL.  Actually both, but a member, Mardukm, will argue against the EO.

Technically, it is "counterpart" to the OO.  The EO "counterpart" is the Melkites.

[Αριστοκλής]

Russian Catholic Church?

Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church?


Related:
Coptic Catholic Church (unsure which --EO or OO-- church this is counter to, unless both).

LOL.  Actually both, but a member, Mardukm, will argue against the EO.

Technically, it is "counterpart" to the OO.  The EO "counterpart" is the Melkites.

Chuckle...nothing like waiting a couple of years for an answer. I do think, however, that Melkite means EO outright (Greek Orthodox) in Egypt and an EO counter church in Syria. Confusing? Yep, but we didn't label ourselves thus.

[ialmisry]

Russian Catholic Church?

Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church?


Related:
Coptic Catholic Church (unsure which --EO or OO-- church this is counter to, unless both).

LOL.  Actually both, but a member, Mardukm, will argue against the EO.

Technically, it is "counterpart" to the OO.  The EO "counterpart" is the Melkites.

Chuckle...nothing like waiting a couple of years for an answer. I do think, however, that Melkite means EO outright (Greek Orthodox) in Egypt and an EO counter church in Syria. Confusing? Yep, but we didn't label ourselves thus.

Yes: the clearest way to determine the "counterpart" is which Eastern branch one would belong according to the Vatican's canon should an Orthodox, God Forbid!, submit to the Vatican.  Mardukm went to the "Coptic Catholic."  Any EO in the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch or Jerusalem would be put in the "Melkite Catholic."  The latter, btw, has very little in the acrimony of these usual "unions."

[Peter J]

Chuckle...nothing like waiting a couple of years for an answer.

Yeah, what's up with that?

[Peter J]

Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical Patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)

I think the interesting thing is that the West did not seize on that fact and say, See it was an ecumenical council.

For example, from Session 23 (26 March 1436) of the Council of Florence:

... firmly believe and hold the catholic faith, according to the tradition of the apostles, of general councils and of other holy fathers, especially of the eight holy universal councils — namely the first at Nicaea, the second at Constantinople, the third which was the first at Ephesus, the fourth at Chalcedon, the fifth and sixth at Constantinople, the seventh at Nicaea and the eighth at Constantinople — as well as of the general councils at the Lateran, Lyons, Vienne, Constance and Basel ...

Notice that, out of the general councils, Florence distinguishing only 8 (not counting itself) as having been ecumenical councils.

[Melodist]

Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical Patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)

I think the interesting thing is that the West did not seize on that fact and say, See it was an ecumenical council.

For example, from Session 23 (26 March 1436) of the Council of Florence:

... firmly believe and hold the catholic faith, according to the tradition of the apostles, of general councils and of other holy fathers, especially of the eight holy universal councils — namely the first at Nicaea, the second at Constantinople, the third which was the first at Ephesus, the fourth at Chalcedon, the fifth and sixth at Constantinople, the seventh at Nicaea and the eighth at Constantinople — as well as of the general councils at the Lateran, Lyons, Vienne, Constance and Basel ...

Notice that, out of the general councils, Florence distinguishing only 8 (not counting itself) as having been ecumenical councils.

The Orthodox Church rejects these councils for two basic reasons. First, they were political in nature, held for the primary purpose of opening the door for military alliances to be held between eastern and wesern political powers. Second, becuase of the political nature of these cuncils, the bishops present were pressured into signing the acts and decrees, even when they did not truly accept them. The large majority of bishops that signed the council of Florence renounced the council as they were stepping off the boat when they got back to the east. Even Pope Eugenius, when he saw that Mark of Ephesus did not sign the council, said "And so, we have accomplished nothing."

[Peter J]

Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical Patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)

I think the interesting thing is that the West did not seize on that fact and say, See it was an ecumenical council.

For example, from Session 23 (26 March 1436) of the Council of Florence:

... firmly believe and hold the catholic faith, according to the tradition of the apostles, of general councils and of other holy fathers, especially of the eight holy universal councils — namely the first at Nicaea, the second at Constantinople, the third which was the first at Ephesus, the fourth at Chalcedon, the fifth and sixth at Constantinople, the seventh at Nicaea and the eighth at Constantinople — as well as of the general councils at the Lateran, Lyons, Vienne, Constance and Basel ...

Notice that, out of the general councils, Florence distinguishing only 8 (not counting itself) as having been ecumenical councils.

The Orthodox Church rejects these councils for two basic reasons. First, they were political in nature, held for the primary purpose of opening the door for military alliances to be held between eastern and wesern political powers. Second, becuase of the political nature of these cuncils, the bishops present were pressured into signing the acts and decrees, even when they did not truly accept them. The large majority of bishops that signed the council of Florence renounced the council as they were stepping off the boat when they got back to the east. Even Pope Eugenius, when he saw that Mark of Ephesus did not sign the council, said "And so, we have accomplished nothing."

That is interesting, because unlike the Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence was considered to be an ecumenical council (not just a general council). Also, it seems strange that he would say that based on the fact that one single bishop didn't sign.

I wonder if there were other statements that shed light on Pope Eugenius' thinking.

[Melodist]

I think it was just recognition of a sign that we weren't truly in one mind and one accord, which is necessary if there is going to be true unity.

I believe nothing good came from it because it was nothing more than a big political mess. There was no unity of faith, there was distrust on both sides, the Byzantine Empire fell, and whatever political goals the west had fell through.

[countertenor]

I think that the Orthodox should insist on the ECs taking part in these talks, because it might just give the ECs the gumption and/or backing they need to take an Orthodox stance, which could lead to them getting much more vocal and demanding to/against the Rome, and the current Eastern Code of Canon Law, and the poor treatment that Rome has given them, and that the ECs have allowed.

[Αριστοκλής]

That is interesting, because unlike the Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence was considered to be an ecumenical council (not just a general council). Also, it seems strange that he would say that based on the fact that one single bishop didn't sign.

I see (and understand) that there is some continuing confusion about what made any council "ecumenical" - a discussion for another thread.

As to the single bishop, that is why he is Saint Mark of Ephesus.

[Maria]

I think I know what you're getting at and I would say you're on to something. In my opinion, the controversy caused by the Eastern Catholic churches is the main reason they are absent (this is especially true in central and eastern Europe). I think the secondary issue is the lack of unity within the Catholic Church.........  Are the Eastern Catholic churches supposed to accept ALL dogmas proclaimed by Rome, or just those that fit into their own traditions? I can't get a single answer to this question and I am Catholic!

Yes, I think you have a good point.

We are accustomed to seeing the EC Churches (btw, the forbidden "U" word here is not seen as so barbaric outside the States.  One can find it in the contemporary writings of Ukrainian Greek Catholics, Polish theologians, Catholic ecumenists, etc.)  -anyway we are accustomed to seeing the EC Churches as red rag to a bull for the Orthodox at ecumenical events.

But we forget that they could be a major embarrassment to the Roman Catholics at such events because they would highlight the lack of unity in the Catholic Church on key doctrines.  The Melkites or the Ukrainians could proclaim, as is their wont, that they accept nothing beyond the faith which they professed at the time of their union with Rome.  This is a right guaranteed to them by their Agreements of Union with the Vatican.  

In other words they could deny papal infallibility, papal supremacy, purgatory, the RC Councils after the 7 Ecumenical Councils, etc.     Imagine the publicity that this lack of unity would grab in the religious press if it were brought to light at a Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical meeting!

So it becomes a little clearer why Rome may be jittery about them and excludes them from the ecumenical dialogue.

True story:

A devout Roman Catholic woman was tired of driving to the one Latin Mass allowed every Sunday which was one to two hours away as the gas mileage was eating into her weekly food allowance since she had many mouths to feed. As a result, she started to attend the Byzantine and Melkite Catholic churches which were less than 30 minutes away from where she lived. However, she became alarmed when the Byzantine Catholic priest announced that there would be no more First Holy Communions because the babies are receiving the three sacraments of initiation at Baptism. Furthermore, she was horrified to learn that Melkites and Ruthenians had beliefs in common with the Orthodox, for example, they did not keep the six holy days of obligation which included the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, and had 12 feast days instead of six. So she wrote a letter to Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles. The Cardinal then made a surprise visit to the Melkite Church in 1994 where he proclaimed that the Eastern Catholic Churches were under the Pope of Rome because all Catholics had to believe in the doctrines of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility. That sermon caused serious problems with several Melkites converting to Orthodoxy because they could not accept Papal Infallibility. I was one of them.

How many other Catholic laity and clergy are misinformed? Surely, this causes problems as Father mentioned.

[podkarpatska]

I think I know what you're getting at and I would say you're on to something. In my opinion, the controversy caused by the Eastern Catholic churches is the main reason they are absent (this is especially true in central and eastern Europe). I think the secondary issue is the lack of unity within the Catholic Church.........  Are the Eastern Catholic churches supposed to accept ALL dogmas proclaimed by Rome, or just those that fit into their own traditions? I can't get a single answer to this question and I am Catholic!

Yes, I think you have a good point.

We are accustomed to seeing the EC Churches (btw, the forbidden "U" word here is not seen as so barbaric outside the States.  One can find it in the contemporary writings of Ukrainian Greek Catholics, Polish theologians, Catholic ecumenists, etc.)  -anyway we are accustomed to seeing the EC Churches as red rag to a bull for the Orthodox at ecumenical events.

But we forget that they could be a major embarrassment to the Roman Catholics at such events because they would highlight the lack of unity in the Catholic Church on key doctrines.  The Melkites or the Ukrainians could proclaim, as is their wont, that they accept nothing beyond the faith which they professed at the time of their union with Rome.  This is a right guaranteed to them by their Agreements of Union with the Vatican.  

In other words they could deny papal infallibility, papal supremacy, purgatory, the RC Councils after the 7 Ecumenical Councils, etc.     Imagine the publicity that this lack of unity would grab in the religious press if it were brought to light at a Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical meeting!

So it becomes a little clearer why Rome may be jittery about them and excludes them from the ecumenical dialogue.

True story:

A devout Roman Catholic woman was tired of driving to the one Latin Mass allowed every Sunday which was one to two hours away as the gas mileage was eating into her weekly food allowance since she had many mouths to feed. As a result, she started to attend the Byzantine and Melkite Catholic churches which were less than 30 minutes away from where she lived. However, she became alarmed when the Byzantine Catholic priest announced that there would be no more First Holy Communions because the babies are receiving the three sacraments of initiation at Baptism. Furthermore, she was horrified to learn that Melkites and Ruthenians had beliefs in common with the Orthodox, for example, they did not keep the six holy days of obligation which included the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, and had 12 feast days instead of six. So she wrote a letter to Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles. The Cardinal then made a surprise visit to the Melkite Church in 1994 where he proclaimed that the Eastern Catholic Churches were under the Pope of Rome because all Catholics had to believe in the doctrines of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility. That sermon caused serious problems with several Melkites converting to Orthodoxy because they could not accept Papal Infallibility. I was one of them.

How many other Catholic laity and clergy are misinformed? Surely, this causes problems as Father mentioned.

Do you have a print source for that story? I am not doubting its veracity as nothing coming from that Cardinal would surprise me.  I would truly like to share it with several friends involved in the dialog for their comments. If accurate, it would support my point that the reality of the status of the Eastern Catholics here in the United States has changed little in the minds of some of their Latin rite counterparts since the days of Archbishop Ireland.

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity. Even under Roman canon law, what would give the Cardinal such authority other than a personal desire to engage in bullying? Could there be some aspect of this story that has acquired the status of urban legend?

[Wyatt]

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity.

That part struck me as odd too. It would be inappropriate for a Latin Cardinal to show up at an Eastern Catholic parish like that because he doesn't have any authority there, does he?

[Alcuin]

Irish Hermit: I was under the impression that the Eastern Orthodox generally regard the Eastern Catholic Churches with disdain as 'unia' and don't want them involved in the dialogue?

Also, I don't understand your argument. First you complained that within the Catholic Church only the Latin rite has autocephaly status (the notion of autocephaly really just can't be applied to the Roman Catholic Church at all of course - the Church in France and the Church in Germany, for example, would not regard themselves as autocephalous either from Rome or one another), then you suggested that the Eastern Catholics might show that they are often times closer to the Orthodox than the Catholic position on matters of dispute (this is certainly true from time to time). If the Eastern Catholics are getting away with denying dogmatic definitions of Rome, that seems pretty autocephalous to me.

Anyways, the situation with the Eastern Catholics is certainly a mess.

[Maria]

I think I know what you're getting at and I would say you're on to something. In my opinion, the controversy caused by the Eastern Catholic churches is the main reason they are absent (this is especially true in central and eastern Europe). I think the secondary issue is the lack of unity within the Catholic Church.........  Are the Eastern Catholic churches supposed to accept ALL dogmas proclaimed by Rome, or just those that fit into their own traditions? I can't get a single answer to this question and I am Catholic!

Yes, I think you have a good point.

We are accustomed to seeing the EC Churches (btw, the forbidden "U" word here is not seen as so barbaric outside the States.  One can find it in the contemporary writings of Ukrainian Greek Catholics, Polish theologians, Catholic ecumenists, etc.)  -anyway we are accustomed to seeing the EC Churches as red rag to a bull for the Orthodox at ecumenical events.

But we forget that they could be a major embarrassment to the Roman Catholics at such events because they would highlight the lack of unity in the Catholic Church on key doctrines.  The Melkites or the Ukrainians could proclaim, as is their wont, that they accept nothing beyond the faith which they professed at the time of their union with Rome.  This is a right guaranteed to them by their Agreements of Union with the Vatican.  

In other words they could deny papal infallibility, papal supremacy, purgatory, the RC Councils after the 7 Ecumenical Councils, etc.     Imagine the publicity that this lack of unity would grab in the religious press if it were brought to light at a Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical meeting!

So it becomes a little clearer why Rome may be jittery about them and excludes them from the ecumenical dialogue.

True story:

A devout Roman Catholic woman was tired of driving to the one Latin Mass allowed every Sunday which was one to two hours away as the gas mileage was eating into her weekly food allowance since she had many mouths to feed. As a result, she started to attend the Byzantine and Melkite Catholic churches which were less than 30 minutes away from where she lived. However, she became alarmed when the Byzantine Catholic priest announced that there would be no more First Holy Communions because the babies are receiving the three sacraments of initiation at Baptism. Furthermore, she was horrified to learn that Melkites and Ruthenians had beliefs in common with the Orthodox, for example, they did not keep the six holy days of obligation which included the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, and had 12 feast days instead of six. So she wrote a letter to Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles. The Cardinal then made a surprise visit to the Melkite Church in 1994 where he proclaimed that the Eastern Catholic Churches were under the Pope of Rome because all Catholics had to believe in the doctrines of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility. That sermon caused serious problems with several Melkites converting to Orthodoxy because they could not accept Papal Infallibility. I was one of them.

How many other Catholic laity and clergy are misinformed? Surely, this causes problems as Father mentioned.

Do you have a print source for that story? I am not doubting its veracity as nothing coming from that Cardinal would surprise me.  I would truly like to share it with several friends involved in the dialog for their comments. If accurate, it would support my point that the reality of the status of the Eastern Catholics here in the United States has changed little in the minds of some of their Latin rite counterparts since the days of Archbishop Ireland.

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity. Even under Roman canon law, what would give the Cardinal such authority other than a personal desire to engage in bullying? Could there be some aspect of this story that has acquired the status of urban legend?

Unfortunately, when Cardinal Mahony visited St. Anne's Melkite Catholic Church, it was an unplanned visit (the Cardinal gave His Grace Bishop JOHN three days notice, so the news media was not given the standard News Release with a two week "heads up" notice. Bishop JOHN had to cancel his other appointments and fly to Los Angeles to honor Cardinal Mahony with a last minute parish dinner. Not cool as Bishop JOHN was not even under Cardinal Mahony. I was an eye witness to the events if that counts for anything, and I personally knew the very devout Catholic woman who blew the whistle. I could have shot her. However, the retired Melkite Bishop His Grace JOHN might be willing to corroborate my story.

[Maria]

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity.

That part struck me as odd too. It would be inappropriate for a Latin Cardinal to show up at an Eastern Catholic parish like that because he doesn't have any authority there, does he?

It also struck Bishop JOHN as very odd. In fact, he was quite red in the face: embarrassed for his parishioners and fuming that the parishioners would be treated as second class citizens. I will not repeat his comments made in private to a few of us.

[ialmisry]

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity.

That part struck me as odd too. It would be inappropriate for a Latin Cardinal to show up at an Eastern Catholic parish like that because he doesn't have any authority there, does he?

The Latin Archbishop in Palestine once forbade the Melkite Archbishop of All Galilee Joseph Raya from celebrating in Akko/Haifa.  I don't know what the Melkite Patriarch of Jerusalem had to say about it. As a priest in Mobile, the Latin Archbishop there banned him from celebrating in English, after inviting Abp. Fulton Sheen to use his "bi-faculties" to celebrate a pontifical DL in English on TV at the 1958 Melkite Convention.

Given that the Latin bishops are seen as the "ordinary" everywhere, I don't find this terribly odd at all.

[ialmisry]

Christus resurrexit!

Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical Patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)

I think the interesting thing is that the West did not seize on that fact and say, See it was an ecumenical council.

For example, from Session 23 (26 March 1436) of the Council of Florence:

... firmly believe and hold the catholic faith, according to the tradition of the apostles, of general councils and of other holy fathers, especially of the eight holy universal councils — namely the first at Nicaea, the second at Constantinople, the third which was the first at Ephesus, the fourth at Chalcedon, the fifth and sixth at Constantinople, the seventh at Nicaea and the eighth at Constantinople — as well as of the general councils at the Lateran, Lyons, Vienne, Constance and Basel ...

Notice that, out of the general councils, Florence distinguishing only 8 (not counting itself) as having been ecumenical councils.

The Orthodox Church rejects these councils for two basic reasons. First, they were political in nature, held for the primary purpose of opening the door for military alliances to be held between eastern and wesern political powers. Second, becuase of the political nature of these cuncils, the bishops present were pressured into signing the acts and decrees, even when they did not truly accept them. The large majority of bishops that signed the council of Florence renounced the council as they were stepping off the boat when they got back to the east. Even Pope Eugenius, when he saw that Mark of Ephesus did not sign the council, said "And so, we have accomplished nothing."

That is interesting, because unlike the Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence was considered to be an ecumenical council (not just a general council).

The Vatican considers both of them ecumenical.  Of course, the Catholic Church does not.

Also, it seems strange that he would say that based on the fact that one single bishop didn't sign.

Not all Orthodox bishops were present, btw, only those whom the Emperor could strong arm.

I wonder if there were other statements that shed light on Pope Eugenius' thinking.

Somewhere here I had the citation that St. Mark was the only theologian who impressed the Latins, and whom they respected.

[ialmisry]

Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical Patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)

The standard answer:

Second Council of Lyons Failed 'reunion Council', 1274 AD
    Motivated by a desire of popes to gain recognition of primacy and by a desire of emperors to receive material and martial aide. Emperor Michael basically compelled the few Orthodox bishops in attendance to rubber-stamp papal claims. Rejected throughout the East and regarded as meaningless. Emperor Michael's sister stated: 'Better my brother's empire should perish than the purity of the Orthodox faith.' Repudiated by Michael's successor.

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txw/orthcoun.htm

Yes, I am always amused how the Vatican's partisans always are worried about our Caesaro-papist speck, while bagging us over the head with their log.

Remember: the filioque was introduced by the Visigoth king, and the Frankish emperor forced its insertion at Rome (after Rome had spent several centuries condemning it).

Why don't they consider Constantinople IV 879 as Ecumenical, as it had representatives of the patriarchs. Btw, Constantinople I had no representative from Rome, and no bishop in the West.  Just bishops from Greece (at the time under Rome's jurisdiction).

Of course, the deeper problem that our friends have,and you pointed out, is the Orthodox Church as a whole had not accepted the Councils.  The bishops do not have the power to sell us out.

had to make that clear.

[Deacon Lance]

The Latin Archbishop in Palestine once forbade the Melkite Archbishop of All Galilee Joseph Raya from celebrating in Akko/Haifa.  I don't know what the Melkite Patriarch of Jerusalem had to say about it. As a priest in Mobile, the Latin Archbishop there banned him from celebrating in English, after inviting Abp. Fulton Sheen to use his "bi-faculties" to celebrate a pontifical DL in English on TV at the 1958 Melkite Convention.

Given that the Latin bishops are seen as the "ordinary" everywhere, I don't find this terribly odd at all.

A Latin bishop can't forbid a Melkite bishop from celebrating anywhere but his own Latin parishes.  Archbishop Joseph once forbade Sunday Liturgy in his Eparchy in protest of Israeli occupation of two Christian villages.  As for Atlanta, Archbishop Joseph appealed to the Patriarch who intervened, as well as the Pope, and English Liturgies continued.

[Deacon Lance]

Unfortunately, when Cardinal Mahony visited St. Anne's Melkite Catholic Church, it was an unplanned visit (the Cardinal gave His Grace Bishop JOHN three days notice, so the news media was not given the standard News Release with a two week "heads up" notice. Bishop JOHN had to cancel his other appointments and fly to Los Angeles to honor Cardinal Mahony with a last minute parish dinner. Not cool as Bishop JOHN was not even under Cardinal Mahony. I was an eye witness to the events if that counts for anything, and I personally knew the very devout Catholic woman who blew the whistle. I could have shot her. However, the retired Melkite Bishop His Grace JOHN might be willing to corroborate my story.

The real question is why did Bishop John give in to him?  The Cardinal didn't have a canonical leg to stand on and Bishop John could have given him notice their will be no visit.

[podkarpatska]

Unfortunately, when Cardinal Mahony visited St. Anne's Melkite Catholic Church, it was an unplanned visit (the Cardinal gave His Grace Bishop JOHN three days notice, so the news media was not given the standard News Release with a two week "heads up" notice. Bishop JOHN had to cancel his other appointments and fly to Los Angeles to honor Cardinal Mahony with a last minute parish dinner. Not cool as Bishop JOHN was not even under Cardinal Mahony. I was an eye witness to the events if that counts for anything, and I personally knew the very devout Catholic woman who blew the whistle. I could have shot her. However, the retired Melkite Bishop His Grace JOHN might be willing to corroborate my story.

The real question is why did Bishop John give in to him?  The Cardinal didn't have a canonical leg to stand on and Bishop John could have given him notice their will be no visit.

Indeed, this continues to be one of the more intriguing stories that have been recounted here.

It would seem to me that a call by the Melkite Bishop to the Nuncio should have cleared this up in the first place, if not before the visit, certainly afterwards. What the Cardinal supposedly said was an affront to all of the Eastern Catholics and in clear violation of the directives regarding the Eastern churches that came out of Vatican 2. It is more curious in that Cardinal Mahoney was surely not the favorite American of the late Pope. Perhaps there was a certain amount of fear on the part of the Bishop should this story  have gotten 'legs' as they say. As I think about it, I can clearly hear the voice of my late grandfather telling his sisters, who remained Greek Catholic, ' I told you so.'

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[Maria]

Unfortunately, when Cardinal Mahony visited St. Anne's Melkite Catholic Church, it was an unplanned visit (the Cardinal gave His Grace Bishop JOHN three days notice, so the news media was not given the standard News Release with a two week "heads up" notice. Bishop JOHN had to cancel his other appointments and fly to Los Angeles to honor Cardinal Mahony with a last minute parish dinner. Not cool as Bishop JOHN was not even under Cardinal Mahony. I was an eye witness to the events if that counts for anything, and I personally knew the very devout Catholic woman who blew the whistle. I could have shot her. However, the retired Melkite Bishop His Grace JOHN might be willing to corroborate my story.

The real question is why did Bishop John give in to him?  The Cardinal didn't have a canonical leg to stand on and Bishop John could have given him notice their will be no visit.

Cardinal Mahony rarely ever visited the Melkite Parish, and I think Bishop JOHN was hoping that his parishioners would help educate the Cardinal during his "canonical" visit (as the Cardinal called it). Oh, by the way, when giving a reason for his canonical visit, the Cardinal said that he had a last minute cancellation, so he was able to fit us in for this special canonical visit. Thus, Bishop JOHN"s red face ... obviously we were second class citizens, and the Cardinal had no reason to consider us as part of his Latin diocese. And then for the finale: Father Deacon Rimmer had to stand away from the Cardinal during the clergy picture as the Deacon's height was so imposing and made the Cardinal look short. We were all aghast at the Cardinal's directive to the Deacon and the camera man.

[podkarpatska]

Unfortunately, when Cardinal Mahony visited St. Anne's Melkite Catholic Church, it was an unplanned visit (the Cardinal gave His Grace Bishop JOHN three days notice, so the news media was not given the standard News Release with a two week "heads up" notice. Bishop JOHN had to cancel his other appointments and fly to Los Angeles to honor Cardinal Mahony with a last minute parish dinner. Not cool as Bishop JOHN was not even under Cardinal Mahony. I was an eye witness to the events if that counts for anything, and I personally knew the very devout Catholic woman who blew the whistle. I could have shot her. However, the retired Melkite Bishop His Grace JOHN might be willing to corroborate my story.

The real question is why did Bishop John give in to him?  The Cardinal didn't have a canonical leg to stand on and Bishop John could have given him notice their will be no visit.

Cardinal Mahony rarely ever visited the Melkite Parish, and I think Bishop JOHN was hoping that his parishioners would help educate the Cardinal during his "canonical" visit (as the Cardinal called it). Oh, by the way, when giving a reason for his canonical visit, the Cardinal said that he had a last minute cancellation, so he was able to fit us in for this special canonical visit. Thus, Bishop JOHN"s red face ... obviously we were second class citizens, and the Cardinal had no reason to consider us as part of his Latin diocese. And then for the finale: Father Deacon Rimmer had to stand away from the Cardinal during the clergy picture as the Deacon's height was so imposing and made the Cardinal look short. We were all aghast at the Cardinal's directive to the Deacon and the camera man.

I've been watching the Borgias on Showtime and it sounds like Cardinal Mahoney would have been at home with the preening, posturing bunch of Cardinals depicted in the screenplay!   

[Peter J]

Christus resurrexit!

Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical Patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)

I think the interesting thing is that the West did not seize on that fact and say, See it was an ecumenical council.

For example, from Session 23 (26 March 1436) of the Council of Florence:

... firmly believe and hold the catholic faith, according to the tradition of the apostles, of general councils and of other holy fathers, especially of the eight holy universal councils — namely the first at Nicaea, the second at Constantinople, the third which was the first at Ephesus, the fourth at Chalcedon, the fifth and sixth at Constantinople, the seventh at Nicaea and the eighth at Constantinople — as well as of the general councils at the Lateran, Lyons, Vienne, Constance and Basel ...

Notice that, out of the general councils, Florence distinguishing only 8 (not counting itself) as having been ecumenical councils.

The Orthodox Church rejects these councils for two basic reasons. First, they were political in nature, held for the primary purpose of opening the door for military alliances to be held between eastern and wesern political powers. Second, becuase of the political nature of these cuncils, the bishops present were pressured into signing the acts and decrees, even when they did not truly accept them. The large majority of bishops that signed the council of Florence renounced the council as they were stepping off the boat when they got back to the east. Even Pope Eugenius, when he saw that Mark of Ephesus did not sign the council, said "And so, we have accomplished nothing."

That is interesting, because unlike the Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence was considered to be an ecumenical council (not just a general council).

The Vatican considers both of them ecumenical.  Of course, the Catholic Church does not.

In the mid-to-late 16th century, certain Catholics (St. Robert Belarmine particularly comes to mind) basically threw out the distinction between the terms "general councils" and "ecumenical councils". Hence, 8 councils (4 at the Lateran, 2 in Lyons, 1 in Constance, and 1 in Vienne) were added en masse to their list of ecumenical councils.

[Melodist]

In the mid-to-late 16th century, certain Catholics (St. Robert Belarmine particularly comes to mind) basically threw out the distinction between the terms "general councils" and "ecumenical councils".

If this distinction was there at one time and then thrown out, could this distinction be put back into use?

Also, what exactly was the difference in the distinction between a "general" and an "ecumenical" council?

[Irish Melkite]

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity.

That part struck me as odd too. It would be inappropriate for a Latin Cardinal to show up at an Eastern Catholic parish like that because he doesn't have any authority there, does he?

The Latin Archbishop in Palestine once forbade the Melkite Archbishop of All Galilee Joseph Raya from celebrating in Akko/Haifa.  I don't know what the Melkite Patriarch of Jerusalem had to say about it. As a priest in Mobile, the Latin Archbishop there banned him from celebrating in English, after inviting Abp. Fulton Sheen to use his "bi-faculties" to celebrate a pontifical DL in English on TV at the 1958 Melkite Convention.

Given that the Latin bishops are seen as the "ordinary" everywhere, I don't find this terribly odd at all.

At the time that then-Archimandrite Joseph (Raya) was forbidden to serve the Divine Liturgy in English by the Latin Archbishop of Mobile, there was not yet a Melkite canonical jurisdiction in the US and the Melkites were canonically subject to the local Latin ordinary. As Deacon Lance has noted, the interdict was short-lived.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Wyatt]

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity.

That part struck me as odd too. It would be inappropriate for a Latin Cardinal to show up at an Eastern Catholic parish like that because he doesn't have any authority there, does he?

The Latin Archbishop in Palestine once forbade the Melkite Archbishop of All Galilee Joseph Raya from celebrating in Akko/Haifa.  I don't know what the Melkite Patriarch of Jerusalem had to say about it. As a priest in Mobile, the Latin Archbishop there banned him from celebrating in English, after inviting Abp. Fulton Sheen to use his "bi-faculties" to celebrate a pontifical DL in English on TV at the 1958 Melkite Convention.

Given that the Latin bishops are seen as the "ordinary" everywhere, I don't find this terribly odd at all.

At the time that then-Archimandrite Joseph (Raya) was forbidden to serve the Divine Liturgy in English by the Latin Archbishop of Mobile, there was not yet a Melkite canonical jurisdiction in the US and the Melkites were canonically subject to the local Latin ordinary. As Deacon Lance has noted, the interdict was short-lived.

Many years,

Neil

There you go presenting facts when ialmisry is trying to portray Rome as the big, evil monster who constantly abuses and bosses around the Eastern Catholic Churches. Don't you know by now that this forum isn't about facts? It's about who can scream their Romaphobic trash the loudest. 

[podkarpatska]

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity.

That part struck me as odd too. It would be inappropriate for a Latin Cardinal to show up at an Eastern Catholic parish like that because he doesn't have any authority there, does he?

The Latin Archbishop in Palestine once forbade the Melkite Archbishop of All Galilee Joseph Raya from celebrating in Akko/Haifa.  I don't know what the Melkite Patriarch of Jerusalem had to say about it. As a priest in Mobile, the Latin Archbishop there banned him from celebrating in English, after inviting Abp. Fulton Sheen to use his "bi-faculties" to celebrate a pontifical DL in English on TV at the 1958 Melkite Convention.

Given that the Latin bishops are seen as the "ordinary" everywhere, I don't find this terribly odd at all.

At the time that then-Archimandrite Joseph (Raya) was forbidden to serve the Divine Liturgy in English by the Latin Archbishop of Mobile, there was not yet a Melkite canonical jurisdiction in the US and the Melkites were canonically subject to the local Latin ordinary. As Deacon Lance has noted, the interdict was short-lived.

Many years,

Neil

There you go presenting facts when ialmisry is trying to portray Rome as the big, evil monster who constantly abuses and bosses around the Eastern Catholic Churches. Don't you know by now that this forum isn't about facts? It's about who can scream their Romaphobic trash the loudest. 

Wyatt, unless you have walked a mile in your Eastern Catholic brothers' and sisters shoes', you really do not know what you are talking about regarding their experiences or about their status in relation to the Roman Rite, particularly in places where they are in a minority. Those of us who left the Eastern Catholic church and those who stayed are in a far better place to understand the difficulty remaining loyal to the concepts expressed in the Unions has been over the centuries.

[Wyatt]

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity.

That part struck me as odd too. It would be inappropriate for a Latin Cardinal to show up at an Eastern Catholic parish like that because he doesn't have any authority there, does he?

The Latin Archbishop in Palestine once forbade the Melkite Archbishop of All Galilee Joseph Raya from celebrating in Akko/Haifa.  I don't know what the Melkite Patriarch of Jerusalem had to say about it. As a priest in Mobile, the Latin Archbishop there banned him from celebrating in English, after inviting Abp. Fulton Sheen to use his "bi-faculties" to celebrate a pontifical DL in English on TV at the 1958 Melkite Convention.

Given that the Latin bishops are seen as the "ordinary" everywhere, I don't find this terribly odd at all.

At the time that then-Archimandrite Joseph (Raya) was forbidden to serve the Divine Liturgy in English by the Latin Archbishop of Mobile, there was not yet a Melkite canonical jurisdiction in the US and the Melkites were canonically subject to the local Latin ordinary. As Deacon Lance has noted, the interdict was short-lived.

Many years,

Neil

There you go presenting facts when ialmisry is trying to portray Rome as the big, evil monster who constantly abuses and bosses around the Eastern Catholic Churches. Don't you know by now that this forum isn't about facts? It's about who can scream their Romaphobic trash the loudest. 

Wyatt, unless you have walked a mile in your Eastern Catholic brothers' and sisters shoes', you really do not know what you are talking about regarding their experiences or about their status in relation to the Roman Rite, particularly in places where they are in a minority. Those of us who left the Eastern Catholic church and those who stayed are in a far better place to understand the difficulty remaining loyal to the concepts expressed in the Unions has been over the centuries.

Has ialmisry walked in the Eastern Catholic's shoes? I would hope so since he comments on it without reprimand from his coreligionists.

[JoeS]

To return to their patristic heritage would mean believing in those things pre schism.  To do this and stay under the pope would create a parallel theological universe which in itself is not a true union of dogma.  Its like straddling  both sides of a chasm and hoping the chasm doesnt get any wider.

JoeS

[Maria]

To return to their patristic heritage would mean believing in those things pre schism.  To do this and stay under the pope would create a parallel theological universe which in itself is not a true union of dogma.  Its like straddling  both sides of a chasm and hoping the chasm doesnt get any wider.

JoeS

Father John Mangels once said that trying to be Eastern Catholic in union with Rome is schizophrenia.
Roman Catholic theology is so dissimilar to Orthodoxy.

I used to attend the Melkite Church. In 1993, when the Eparch died, Bishop John was placed as the administrator until Rome could approve a new Eparch. It took a couple of years. This would not be the case in a Roman Catholic Diocese.

If the Code of Canon Law of 1917 had not been implemented, then the Traditional way of electing bishops would have been followed:

According to Ancient Church Tradition, the way of electing a bishop is as follows:

After a bishop dies or is disposed, then members and priests of the diocese would gather together in prayer to select three names.
These three names would be submitted to the three nearby dioceses for approval.
If one or more names were approved by the three bishops, then these three bishops would consecrate the candidate(s).
Rome and/or the other dioceses would be notified AFTER THE FACT.

With the implementation of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility and Papal Supremacy, this all changed, and required the diocese to submit their three names directly to the Vatican who does not know each priest. Local control is thereby eliminated and the Vatican bureaucracy has been growing in power. If the Vatican does not approve at least one candidate, then the diocese must submit another list of three names until the Vatican approves a candidate. With Vatican-mandated approval, the process takes longer. In the above case, Rome sent a Latin-Rite Bishop to visit various Melkite parishes unannounced to talk with the parishioners about the candidates. It was very awkward when this Bishop visited the parish where Bishop John was staying. It went against all protocols as there was no announcement that he was coming.

[ialmisry]

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity.

That part struck me as odd too. It would be inappropriate for a Latin Cardinal to show up at an Eastern Catholic parish like that because he doesn't have any authority there, does he?

The Latin Archbishop in Palestine once forbade the Melkite Archbishop of All Galilee Joseph Raya from celebrating in Akko/Haifa.  I don't know what the Melkite Patriarch of Jerusalem had to say about it. As a priest in Mobile, the Latin Archbishop there banned him from celebrating in English, after inviting Abp. Fulton Sheen to use his "bi-faculties" to celebrate a pontifical DL in English on TV at the 1958 Melkite Convention.

Given that the Latin bishops are seen as the "ordinary" everywhere, I don't find this terribly odd at all.

At the time that then-Archimandrite Joseph (Raya) was forbidden to serve the Divine Liturgy in English by the Latin Archbishop of Mobile, there was not yet a Melkite canonical jurisdiction in the US and the Melkites were canonically subject to the local Latin ordinary. As Deacon Lance has noted, the interdict was short-lived.

Many years,

Neil

There you go presenting facts when ialmisry is trying to portray Rome as the big, evil monster who constantly abuses and bosses around the Eastern Catholic Churches. Don't you know by now that this forum isn't about facts? It's about who can scream their Romaphobic trash the loudest. 

Wyatt, unless you have walked a mile in your Eastern Catholic brothers' and sisters shoes', you really do not know what you are talking about regarding their experiences or about their status in relation to the Roman Rite, particularly in places where they are in a minority. Those of us who left the Eastern Catholic church and those who stayed are in a far better place to understand the difficulty remaining loyal to the concepts expressed in the Unions has been over the centuries.

Has ialmisry walked in the Eastern Catholic's shoes? I would hope so since he comments on it without reprimand from his coreligionists.

I know that the Vatican counts it a virtue to reprimand inconvenient truths, but that isn't the Orthodox way.

For example, see how the Vatican (and by that I mean its supreme pontiff, as he got himself personally invovled) dealt with the Hnylychky Treason Trial (treason, because "Greek Catholics" returned to Orthodoxy), ending in the forced resignation of the primate of the UGCC.

Religion and nationality in Western Ukraine: the Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia 1867-1900 By John-Paul Himka
http://books.google.com/books?id=j2yhkvCx60IC&pg=PA73&dq=religion+west+ukraine+Hnylychky&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

And this forum is very much on facts.  That you do not like them and their incovenience doesn't change that. Facts are stubborn things.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Exclusion of Eastern Catholic Churches from the Ecumenical Dialogue