Topic: Exclusion of Eastern Catholic Churches from the Ecumenical Dialogue

[Peter J]

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.

I'm reminded of another conversation. (The entire thread can be found here: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? )


Me:
At the parish I usually attend (Melkite) the priest commemorates Archbishop Cyril, Patriarch Gregory, and Pope Benedict.

Now, I don't remember where, but somewhere I've heard that the traditional practice is actually for the parish priest to commemorate only his own bishop. I.e. only the bishop commemorates other bishops. (Can anyone confirm this?)

I don't think we are ready to return to that traditional (assuming it is) practice. However, I wonder if a compromise would be possible: Namely, to commemorate not only the Melkite Patriarch and the Roman Patriarch, but all the Catholic Patriarches. It seems like that would make a lot more sense than commemorating some but not others.

-

Nelson Chase:
quote: According to Metropolitan Georges Khodre of Mount Lebanon (Patriarchate of Antioch) - "In mentioning the Pope of Rome in the Eastern liturgies we are inviting the Churches to a practice the East has never known."

If this is the case, I am sure it is, then our Eastern Catholic Churches should return to the Orthodox practice. But I can already see the reaction from some, "they are not Catholic because they don't commemorate the Pope."

-

Me:
Yes, that's pretty much my thinking as well: in principle we should follow the traditional method, but that probably wouldn't work out too well in practice. So some sort of compromise seems to be in order.

-

ConstantineTG:
The commemoration is about the hierarchy which also represents the communion of the people with the Church. So we the people are in communion with the Church through our Bishop, who is in communion with the Metropolitan, who is in communion with the Patriarch, who is in communion with the Pope. There's no point to commemorate the other Bishops including other Patriarchs.

-

Nelson Chase:
quote: There's no point to commemorate the other Bishops including other Patriarchs.

And really the Pope in our liturgies. We are in communion with the Pope only through our communion with our Bishop, (through our parish under his rep- the Priest) who is in communion with his Metropolitan, who is communion with his Patriarch, who is in communion with the Pope. Now a Metropolitan Church is different in that case the Metropolitan commemorates the Pope.

I think Eastern Catholics can stress the point of "we are in communion with the Pope" to a fault. Really, we should follow the pattern laid out above (which is the Orthodox Practice) but we don't because we don't want to be accused of not being Catholic. Returning to the Orthodox Practice is part of the courage to be ourselves.

-

Fr. Deacon Lance:
What is in the liturgicon? That determines what we could and couldn't do.

-

Me:
Isn't it up to Patriarch Gregory and the Melkite synod to determine what's in the Melkite liturgicon (with certain exceptions, like CCEO Canon 209 requiring the Pope to be commemorated)?

-

Fr. Deacon Lance:
Exactly.

[FormerReformer]

Welcome back, Peter 

[Peter J]

Thanks, FormerReformer.

[Maria]

Thanks, FormerReformer.

Welcome back, Peter!

[Cavaradossi]

Good to see you back, Peter. Hope you'll be staying.

[Peter J]

Can part of the problem be part of the solution?

Apologies in advance, if what I'm about to say has already been discussed. Today I got to thinking, we've had this thread going for the last 4+ years about Eastern Catholics being excluded from dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox, but what about other ecumenical dialogues?

For example, are Eastern Catholics included in the Catholic-Anglican dialogues? There doesn't seem to be any reason not to. (I've never heard any prediction that Anglicans would boycott the talks if Eastern Catholics were present.)

[Cavaradossi]

Can part of the problem be part of the solution?

Apologies in advance, if what I'm about to say has already been discussed. Today I got to thinking, we've had this thread going for the last 4+ years about Eastern Catholics being excluded from dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox, but what about other ecumenical dialogues?

For example, are Eastern Catholics included in the Catholic-Anglican dialogues? There doesn't seem to be any reason not to. (I've never heard any prediction that Anglicans would boycott the talks if Eastern Catholics were present.)

Not to be cynical, but I wonder if Rome believes that they should have such autonomy in the first place. The Melkites seem occasionally to be at odds with Rome over this very issue.

[Peter J]

For example, are Eastern Catholics included in the Catholic-Anglican dialogues? There doesn't seem to be any reason not to.

I should say, there doesn't seem to be any good reason not to.

I can think of some not-so-good reasons, e.g. the worry that the Anglicans might get "ideas".

[FormerReformer]

At the risk of offending some Eastern Catholics- are there enough in Anglican areas to warrant inclusion in the Catholic-Anglican dialogues (I ask seriously, I have no idea how the demographics work out here)? I suppose in the case of the Anglican Ordinariate ECs could give some good advice about what to expect, but whether what the ECs have to say in that regard is good or bad has much to do with what side of the Atlantic you're on. American history in general, and American Orthodox history in particular, does not paint the whole reunification with Rome idea in the best light.

[Orest]

Can part of the problem be part of the solution?

I guess not according to Patriarch Kyrill (MP):
"In order for such a meeting to be really useful for further development of relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, we need to work together to radically improve the atmosphere of these relations by resolving the problems that exist between us," the Patriarch said.

Speaking about the seizure of Orthodox churches in Ukraine by Greek Catholics, the Patriarch pointed out that the Russian Church has recently suggested reviving the four-party commission comprising the Vatican, the Moscow Patriarchate, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

"However, the Catholic Church was not very enthusiastic about our offer," he said.

The issue of the situation with Orthodox churches in Western Ukraine has been regularly raised during meetings with representatives of the Catholic Church in the Moscow Patriarchate, the Patriarch said.

"The Pope and the heads of the Vatican congregations are expressing an understanding about our concerns, but the problem remains unresolved," Patriarch Kirill said."
This is from a Jan. 31,2012 article:
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=9020

[podkarpatska]

My Reply #1 to Patriarch Kirill (MP) - Meeting with the Pope is Not Yet Possible merits reposting here regarding this issue, since the property disputes were brought up by the previous poster.

"Here is the sticking point and it is one that those of us who either personally, or through our family narratives, were involved in property disputes here in North America can understand:

"Speaking about the seizure of Orthodox churches in Ukraine by Greek Catholics, the Patriarch pointed out that the Russian Church has recently suggested reviving the four-party commission comprising the Vatican, the Moscow Patriarchate, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church."

To those who retained their Greek Catholic faith during the periods of state enforced persecution, the property transfers in western Ukraine are not 'seizures' but legitimate 'recoveries.' For example, the Greek Catholic Cathedrals in Uzhorod and Muchachevo were both built in the post-Unia era in the 18th and 19th centuries, so to the Greek Catholics they were unlawfully 'seized' as a result of state actions in 1947.

To those who legitimately professed Orthodoxy both prior to and following 1947, their views on the subject are obviously different and need to be respected by the Greek Catholic community as well before any meaningful progress can be achieved.

As to those who sit in places like Moscow, Athens or in comfortable places in the west who abstractly pine about the historical wrongs caused by the unia in the first instance, I can only say that it is far easier to pontificate on a subject than to understand it from first hand experience.

...Of course the Ukrainian problems are compounded by the fractures within the Orthodox communities in Ukraine and the relationships, and lack thereof, which the Ukrainian Greek Catholics are developing with some of the Orthodox on purely nationalistic grounds."

[Orest]

When you visit western Ukraine now in 2012, the topic of church property is not on people's minds.  It took 20 years but it is over as far as most people there are concerned.  People have decided to which church they want to belong and the MP is not popular.  Can't imagine why the MP even bothers bringing it up but it does show why the MP would not welcome Eastern Catholics at any ecumenical dialogue.

An interesting article to read is "Orthodoxy and Autocephaly in Galicia" by Prof. Harald H. Jepsen of the Slavonic Institute of Odense University in Denmark.  It is Chapter 5 in a book entitled "Galicia A Multicultured Land."  edited by that famous Rusyn and president of the World Council of Rusyns Paul Magocsi.  What is most interesting about the article is the background history of the turmoil in Galicia in the late 19th century when the Basilians were latinizing the area.  The authors comments on Fr. Havriil Kostelnyk, who was pro-Orthodox before 1946 Council of Lviv and his good friend Fr. Dmitriy Yarema who was active in the 1946 Council and also in the August 1989 founding of the UAOC in Lviv are very interesting. 

[Peter J]

At the risk of offending some Eastern Catholics- are there enough in Anglican areas to warrant inclusion in the Catholic-Anglican dialogues (I ask seriously, I have no idea how the demographics work out here)?

That's a good point. But I wasn't thinking of regional dialogue so much. I was thinking of, like, ARCIC (Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission).

[podkarpatska]

When you visit western Ukraine now in 2012, the topic of church property is not on people's minds.  It took 20 years but it is over as far as most people there are concerned.  People have decided to which church they want to belong and the MP is not popular.  Can't imagine why the MP even bothers bringing it up but it does show why the MP would not welcome Eastern Catholics at any ecumenical dialogue.

An interesting article to read is "Orthodoxy and Autocephaly in Galicia" by Prof. Harald H. Jepsen of the Slavonic Institute of Odense University in Denmark.  It is Chapter 5 in a book entitled "Galicia A Multicultured Land."  edited by that famous Rusyn and president of the World Council of Rusyns Paul Magocsi.  What is most interesting about the article is the background history of the turmoil in Galicia in the late 19th century when the Basilians were latinizing the area.  The authors comments on Fr. Havriil Kostelnyk, who was pro-Orthodox before 1946 Council of Lviv and his good friend Fr. Dmitriy Yarema who was active in the 1946 Council and also in the August 1989 founding of the UAOC in Lviv are very interesting.  

This is true, that just as in America, the folks affected within Ukraine (and Slovakia for that matter)  have had to learn to live with the consequences of the 'split' between those who are Greek Catholic and those who are not. Like I've observed repeatedly, the unia seems to loom larger in the minds of those who have not had to live with its consequences than it is in the LONG RUN consciousness - not the short spurts of hot-headedness as in the 1930's here and the 1990's in Europe - of those of us who have had to deal with it directly.

[elijahmaria]

When you visit western Ukraine now in 2012, the topic of church property is not on people's minds.  It took 20 years but it is over as far as most people there are concerned.  People have decided to which church they want to belong and the MP is not popular.  Can't imagine why the MP even bothers bringing it up but it does show why the MP would not welcome Eastern Catholics at any ecumenical dialogue.

An interesting article to read is "Orthodoxy and Autocephaly in Galicia" by Prof. Harald H. Jepsen of the Slavonic Institute of Odense University in Denmark.  It is Chapter 5 in a book entitled "Galicia A Multicultured Land."  edited by that famous Rusyn and president of the World Council of Rusyns Paul Magocsi.  What is most interesting about the article is the background history of the turmoil in Galicia in the late 19th century when the Basilians were latinizing the area.  The authors comments on Fr. Havriil Kostelnyk, who was pro-Orthodox before 1946 Council of Lviv and his good friend Fr. Dmitriy Yarema who was active in the 1946 Council and also in the August 1989 founding of the UAOC in Lviv are very interesting.  

This is true, that just as in America, the folks affected within Ukraine (and Slovakia for that matter)  have had to learn to live with the consequences of the 'split' between those who are Greek Catholic and those who are not. Like I've observed repeatedly, the unia seems to loom larger in the minds of those who have not had to live with its consequences than it is in the LONG RUN consciousness - not the short spurts of hot-headedness as in the 1930's here and the 1990's in Europe - of those of us who have had to deal with it directly.

Perhaps they are a rebuke to those who wish to perpetuate the fight. 

[Peter J]

At the risk of offending some Eastern Catholics- are there enough in Anglican areas to warrant inclusion in the Catholic-Anglican dialogues (I ask seriously, I have no idea how the demographics work out here)?

There seems to be an assumption here that only those who live in the other side's areas should be involved in dialogue. Is this a common Orthodox assumption? I find it a bit puzzling.

[Peter J]

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 would like to suggest a thesis here, which I hope will get a decent hearing on this forum. (What can I say, I'm a hopeless optimist. )

I think the big problem is not, strictly speaking, that the Orthodox are too hard on Eastern Catholics or that they are too hard on Latin Catholics; rather I'd say the big problem is a lack of consistency. Depending on the situation, Orthodox can either discredit Eastern Catholics by making them out to be worse than Latin Catholics ("uni***") or discredit Latin Catholics by making them out to be worse than Eastern Catholics ("not one of us Eastern Christians").

[Peter J]

P.S. Yes, I realize that a phrase in my last post may give some people the giggles (just like when someone else used the phrase in a recent thread title).

[J Michael]

P.S. Yes, I realize that a phrase in my last post may give some people the giggles (just like when someone else used the phrase in a recent thread title).

Which phrase?  That you're a hopeless optimist?  (Giggle, giggle. )  And here I thought you were merely a "nay-sayer"!  .  Isn't the term "hopeless optimist" somewhat oxymoronic?  Doesn't optimism, by definition, embody hope?

[JoeS2]

Those who have followed the International Meeting in early October in Ravenna between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches may have noted that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not involved.  This has been true all the way since these series of Meetings commenced in the 1980s and it was true at Belgrade in September 2006 and at Ravenna in October 2007.

The decision was made in the beginning that the Churches would send delegates from autocephalous Churches (NOT autonomous Churches.)

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

To balance the Orthodox numbers there are 30 delegates from the Roman Catholic Church. 

The Roman Catholic Church is the *only* Church of autocephalous status in the Catholic world of 23 sui juris Chuches.  All the Eastern Catholic Churches have simply autonomous status and are not qualified to participate in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

WHY has the ecumenical dialogue been so structured as to exclude the Eastern Catholics?

As an OCA'r I know that my interests are already represented.  As an EC I would also say that the Vatican represents me. No need to have the EC'rs there

[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.

you assUme that there is something to reprimand.  Your persecution complex/paranoia is not my concern.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13428.msg640229.html#msg640229

[Peter J]

As an OCA'r I know that my interests are already represented.  As an EC I would also say that the Vatican represents me. No need to have the EC'rs there

 

[Peter J]

P.S. Yes, I realize that a phrase in my last post may give some people the giggles (just like when someone else used the phrase in a recent thread title).

Which phrase?  That you're a hopeless optimist? 

[podkarpatska]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that at least in North America, the Eastern Catholics have been represented on the Joint Commission for some years. Among the current representatives from the Catholic Church are at least three Eastern Catholic priests, Fr. Peter Galazda from the UGCC in Canada, Father David Petras from the BCC in the US as well as a Maronite priest.   http://old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-113.shtml

[JoeS2]

As an OCA'r I know that my interests are already represented.  As an EC I would also say that the Vatican represents me. No need to have the EC'rs there

 

: If you noticed the OCA is not present at this Dialogue, but we know that our interests will be properly represented.  One the other  hand since you belong to Rome, Rome, I am sure, will be speaking on behalf of Eastern Catholics and thus will be properly represented.

[Peter J]

As an OCA'r I know that my interests are already represented.  As an EC I would also say that the Vatican represents me. No need to have the EC'rs there

 

: If you noticed the OCA is not present at this Dialogue, but we know that our interests will be properly represented.  One the other  hand since you belong to Rome, Rome, I am sure, will be speaking on behalf of Eastern Catholics and thus will be properly represented.

I'm familiar with the OCA not being included (actually, that was mentioned in a talk I just listened to from Metropolitan Kallistos Ware) but I was confused by "As an EC I would ...". I guess that means "If I were an EC I would ..." right?

[podkarpatska]

Actually, again on the North American consultation, the OCA is, and has been represented by Father John Erickson and by Dr. Paul Myendorff of St. Vladimir's along with Bishop Alexander of the OCA's Bulgarian diocese.

[JoeS2]

[/quote]

I'm familiar with the OCA not being included (actually, that was mentioned in a talk I just listened to from Metropolitan Kallistos Ware) but I was confused by "As an EC I would ...". I guess that means "If I were an EC I would ..." right?
[/quote]

There are some Orthodox Jurisditions that dont recognize our Autocephaly from the MP in 1970 but do accept that we are canonical. I dont feel put out by the fact that we as OCA'rs have not been officially included in the Dialogue just the same I know that whatever decisions that are made we will go along with.

I hope that I can properly convey my opinion here:

If I were an Eastern Catholic it would not bother me much that we were not represented in with the Roman Catholic delegates. I would be assured that whatever transpires at the Dialogue it would be of benefit to the ECC.   I cant imagine, in the present atmosphere of talks, the Roman church working to ECC's  detriment.   So, I wouldnt worry over what the Vatican delegation may adopt, after all you are all one with Rome.

[Peter J]

Those who have followed the International Meeting in early October in Ravenna between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches may have noted that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not involved.  This has been true all the way since these series of Meetings commenced in the 1980s and it was true at Belgrade in September 2006 and at Ravenna in October 2007.

The decision was made in the beginning that the Churches would send delegates from autocephalous Churches (NOT autonomous Churches.)

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

To balance the Orthodox numbers there are 30 delegates from the Roman Catholic Church. 

The Roman Catholic Church is the *only* Church of autocephalous status in the Catholic world of 23 sui juris Chuches.  All the Eastern Catholic Churches have simply autonomous status and are not qualified to participate in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

WHY has the ecumenical dialogue been so structured as to exclude the Eastern Catholics?

Hi everyone. I don't wish to rehash this whole thread, but there's something I don't understand. Until recently I had no doubt that the statements in the OP (quoted above) were factual (and not just because I read it on OCnet of course  ); however, I've just come across an article from Fr. Ronald G. Roberson that says something different:

It should be mentioned at this point that among the Greek Catholics there has been a strong sense of unease about the progress of this dialogue.To many, it seems that Rome and the Orthodox have been negotiating about their future when they were not at the table. True, there are Eastern Catholics who participate individually as Catholic members, and in numbers larger than their percentage of the Catholic faithful would require. But still there is a feeling, expressed with the most vigor by Ukrainian Greek Catholics, that they should be represented as churches on the international dialogue, at least as long as the status or even the fate of their churches are being discussed.

- The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: A Brief History

I'm hoping someone can help me out. Have I simply been misunderstanding all this time? Is it accurate to say the issue is that Eastern Catholics only participate in the dialogue individually, without being represented as churches?

[Deacon Lance]

A few priests there as consultors/interpreters/translators is not representation. 

[Peter J]

A few priests there as consultors/interpreters/translators is not representation. 

Thanks for that reply, Deacon Lance; I was feeling pretty puzzled by Fr. Ron's statement.

[ialmisry]

Those who have followed the International Meeting in early October in Ravenna between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches may have noted that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not involved.  This has been true all the way since these series of Meetings commenced in the 1980s and it was true at Belgrade in September 2006 and at Ravenna in October 2007.

The decision was made in the beginning that the Churches would send delegates from autocephalous Churches (NOT autonomous Churches.)

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

To balance the Orthodox numbers there are 30 delegates from the Roman Catholic Church.  

The Roman Catholic Church is the *only* Church of autocephalous status in the Catholic world of 23 sui juris Chuches.  All the Eastern Catholic Churches have simply autonomous status and are not qualified to participate in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

WHY has the ecumenical dialogue been so structured as to exclude the Eastern Catholics?

Hi everyone. I don't wish to rehash this whole thread, but there's something I don't understand. Until recently I had no doubt that the statements in the OP (quoted above) were factual (and not just because I read it on OCnet of course  ); however, I've just come across an article from Fr. Ronald G. Roberson that says something different:

It should be mentioned at this point that among the Greek Catholics there has been a strong sense of unease about the progress of this dialogue.To many, it seems that Rome and the Orthodox have been negotiating about their future when they were not at the table. True, there are Eastern Catholics who participate individually as Catholic members, and in numbers larger than their percentage of the Catholic faithful would require. But still there is a feeling, expressed with the most vigor by Ukrainian Greek Catholics, that they should be represented as churches on the international dialogue, at least as long as the status or even the fate of their churches are being discussed.

- The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: A Brief History

I'm hoping someone can help me out. Have I simply been misunderstanding all this time? Is it accurate to say the issue is that Eastern Catholics only participate in the dialogue individually, without being represented as churches?

Yes, for a variety of reasons:for one, they are all in schism from their Mother Churches, i.e. the Orthodox, with whom they would have to deal with individually.  For instance, the UGCC is in schism (or rather heresy, but we'll leave that aside for the point at hand) from the Patriarchate of Moscow.  On the one hand the PoM has to speak with the Vatican with the other Orthodox Churches present, as no separate deal can be made with the Vatican that all 14 other Churches do not agree with.  On the other hand, regarding the UGCC, it has to deal with the PoM alone on its status: the Patriarchate of Antioch, for instance, has no business or concern with the UGCC beyond what it pursues in common with Moscow with the Vatican. Conversely, Antioch would deal with the Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs now in submission to the Vatican.

Which brings up another issue: if the "Byzantine Catholics" have to be represented at the Vatican-Orthodox talks, don't the Armenian, Coptic, Syriac "sui juris churches" with which the Vatican and the Byzantines are in communion, have to be represented as well?

[choy]

Yes, for a variety of reasons:for one, they are all in schism from their Mother Churches, i.e. the Orthodox, with whom they would have to deal with individually.  For instance, the UGCC is in schism (or rather heresy, but we'll leave that aside for the point at hand) from the Patriarchate of Moscow.  On the one hand the PoM has to speak with the Vatican with the other Orthodox Churches present, as no separate deal can be made with the Vatican that all 14 other Churches do not agree with.  On the other hand, regarding the UGCC, it has to deal with the PoM alone on its status: the Patriarchate of Antioch, for instance, has no business or concern with the UGCC beyond what it pursues in common with Moscow with the Vatican. Conversely, Antioch would deal with the Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs now in submission to the Vatican.

Which brings up another issue: if the "Byzantine Catholics" have to be represented at the Vatican-Orthodox talks, don't the Armenian, Coptic, Syriac "sui juris churches" with which the Vatican and the Byzantines are in communion, have to be represented as well?

I am curious as to what heresy you are talking about regarding the UGCC?  Is it her claim to be a Patriarchate?

[ialmisry]

Yes, for a variety of reasons:for one, they are all in schism from their Mother Churches, i.e. the Orthodox, with whom they would have to deal with individually.  For instance, the UGCC is in schism (or rather heresy, but we'll leave that aside for the point at hand) from the Patriarchate of Moscow.  On the one hand the PoM has to speak with the Vatican with the other Orthodox Churches present, as no separate deal can be made with the Vatican that all 14 other Churches do not agree with.  On the other hand, regarding the UGCC, it has to deal with the PoM alone on its status: the Patriarchate of Antioch, for instance, has no business or concern with the UGCC beyond what it pursues in common with Moscow with the Vatican. Conversely, Antioch would deal with the Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs now in submission to the Vatican.

Which brings up another issue: if the "Byzantine Catholics" have to be represented at the Vatican-Orthodox talks, don't the Armenian, Coptic, Syriac "sui juris churches" with which the Vatican and the Byzantines are in communion, have to be represented as well?

I am curious as to what heresy you are talking about regarding the UGCC?  Is it her claim to be a Patriarchate?

No.  Things like its acceptance of Pastor Aeternus (which, given the present stance of their supreme pontiff, shows that their claim to be a patriarchate is non-canonical), Ineffibilis Deus etc.

[Peter J]

I am curious as to what heresy you are talking about regarding the UGCC?  Is it her claim to be a Patriarchate?

I generally try not to guess what ialmisry is going to say () but I would point out that his profile says he's Orthodox.

Edit: I see he's answered while I was typing.

[Peter J]

Which brings up another issue: if the "Byzantine Catholics" have to be represented at the Vatican-Orthodox talks, don't the Armenian, Coptic, Syriac "sui juris churches" with which the Vatican and the Byzantines are in communion, have to be represented as well?

And the Anglican Ordinariates?

[Gorazd]

The Italo-Greek church (of Calabria), like the Maronites, has no Orthodox complement.

There is a metropolis of Venice and Italy under Constantinople.

Also, the UGCC never considered Moscow to be its mother church, but only Constantinople, which is historically correct. At the time Greek Catholicism began in Ukraine, no Orthodox diocese on the right side of the Dnipro was under Moscow, but all under Constantinople.

In fact, wouldnt it be cool if the UGCC were to return to Orthodoxy as an autonomous church under Constantinople? 

[Peter J]

The Italo-Greek church (of Calabria), like the Maronites, has no Orthodox complement.

There is a metropolis of Venice and Italy under Constantinople.

Also, the UGCC never considered Moscow to be its mother church, but only Constantinople, which is historically correct. At the time Greek Catholicism began in Ukraine, no Orthodox diocese on the right side of the Dnipro was under Moscow, but all under Constantinople.

In fact, wouldnt it be cool if the UGCC were to return to Orthodoxy as an autonomous church under Constantinople? 

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but it seems to me that the Orthodox need to "get over themselves" with regard to all the we're-the-mother-churches-of-ECs-and-they-should-return-to-us talk.

[ialmisry]

The Italo-Greek church (of Calabria), like the Maronites, has no Orthodox complement.

There is a metropolis of Venice and Italy under Constantinople.

Also, the UGCC never considered Moscow to be its mother church, but only Constantinople, which is historically correct.  At the time Greek Catholicism began in Ukraine, no Orthodox diocese on the right side of the Dnipro was under Moscow, but all under Constantinople.

Barely.  Kiev was only recently returned to Constantinople's jurisdiction, and the EP actually put in office the Metropolitan who apostacized.

In fact, wouldnt it be cool if the UGCC were to return to Orthodoxy as an autonomous church under Constantinople? 

No.

[ialmisry]

The Italo-Greek church (of Calabria), like the Maronites, has no Orthodox complement.

There is a metropolis of Venice and Italy under Constantinople.

Also, the UGCC never considered Moscow to be its mother church, but only Constantinople, which is historically correct. At the time Greek Catholicism began in Ukraine, no Orthodox diocese on the right side of the Dnipro was under Moscow, but all under Constantinople.

In fact, wouldnt it be cool if the UGCC were to return to Orthodoxy as an autonomous church under Constantinople? 

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but it seems to me that the Orthodox need to "get over themselves" with regard to all the we're-the-mother-churches-of-ECs-and-they-should-return-to-us talk.

Complain to the Vatican.  For one, they insist that if a Orthodox apostacizes, he has to go to the schismatic sui juris.

[Peter J]

The Italo-Greek church (of Calabria), like the Maronites, has no Orthodox complement.

There is a metropolis of Venice and Italy under Constantinople.

Also, the UGCC never considered Moscow to be its mother church, but only Constantinople, which is historically correct. At the time Greek Catholicism began in Ukraine, no Orthodox diocese on the right side of the Dnipro was under Moscow, but all under Constantinople.

In fact, wouldnt it be cool if the UGCC were to return to Orthodoxy as an autonomous church under Constantinople? 

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but it seems to me that the Orthodox need to "get over themselves" with regard to all the we're-the-mother-churches-of-ECs-and-they-should-return-to-us talk.

Complain to the Vatican.  For one, they insist that if a Orthodox apostacizes, he has to go to the schismatic sui juris.

Okay, that was a pretty good comeback (even if it wasn't much of flame ).

[choy]

No.  Things like its acceptance of Pastor Aeternus (which, given the present stance of their supreme pontiff, shows that their claim to be a patriarchate is non-canonical), Ineffibilis Deus etc.

Ah, I see. But why wouldn't we? We're Catholic after all.  This is what I do not get with Eastern Catholics, and I admit I got caught up in this.  We're trying to be like the Orthodox in terms of our theology on the Papacy (or lack of it for the Orthodox).  But the fact that we're Catholics we should be accepting these dogmas with no ifs and buts.  If we don't, then we should be Orthodox.  It is as simple as that.

[J Michael]

No.  Things like its acceptance of Pastor Aeternus (which, given the present stance of their supreme pontiff, shows that their claim to be a patriarchate is non-canonical), Ineffibilis Deus etc.

But the fact that we're Catholics we should be accepting these dogmas with no ifs and buts.  If we don't, then we should be Orthodox.  It is as simple as that.

^ +1

[mike]

Ah, I see. But why wouldn't we? We're Catholic after all.  This is what I do not get with Eastern Catholics, and I admit I got caught up in this.  We're trying to be like the Orthodox in terms of our theology on the Papacy (or lack of it for the Orthodox).  But the fact that we're Catholics we should be accepting these dogmas with no ifs and buts.  If we don't, then we should be Orthodox.  It is as simple as that.

And they are heresies. It is as simple as that.

[Peter J]

No.  Things like its acceptance of Pastor Aeternus (which, given the present stance of their supreme pontiff, shows that their claim to be a patriarchate is non-canonical), Ineffibilis Deus etc.

Ah, I see. But why wouldn't we? We're Catholic after all.  This is what I do not get with Eastern Catholics, and I admit I got caught up in this.  We're trying to be like the Orthodox in terms of our theology on the Papacy (or lack of it for the Orthodox).  But the fact that we're Catholics we should be accepting these dogmas with no ifs and buts.  If we don't, then we should be Orthodox.  It is as simple as that.

That makes sense, but it doesn't have much bearing on this particular discussion. If it's heretical for a Latin Catholic (or, as people say on this forum a "Roman Catholic") to say that the Pope has universal ordinary jurisdiction, then it is just as heretical for an Eastern Catholic to say it.