Thanks for the clarification. Obviously, Bishop John's word is dispositive. I had been told by others in the clergy that this was not the case, as a practical matter, in the patriarchal territory. In addition, I had also read somewhere (I think in Fr. Serge Descy's book "The Melkite Church", but I'm not certain and I will have to check this evening) that this was not done in the patriarchal territory. It appears that I was misled, however, in light of Bishop John's confirmation.

You have run across an interesting example of how the meaning or intention of a doctrinal principle can become totally inverted over time. Olivi made his claim in regard to the controversy regarding Franciscan poverty. You may or may not remember that the early Franciscans took vows of radical poverty, and this was seen by many as anti-clerical and intensely threatening to the institutional Church, so much so that Francis himself was almost condemned for heresy. Having gotten official papal sanction for the order and its way, however, there remained a nagging worry that what one pope gave, another could take away. Hence, Olivi developed the notion that papal pronoucnements on the faith were infallible and thus irreformable. If accepted, such a principle would automatically bind a pope to that which his predecessors had decreed; rather than expanding papal power, it was seen as a radical limitation upon it.

Over the centuries, however, the understanding of the principle became inverted, so that rather than limiting papal power, it was seen as implying that papal power is essentially unlimited.

It was in that ultra-ultramontanist form that the question of infallibility was put to the First Vatican Council, but after a few demonstrations of Pio Nono in operation, the Fathers of that council proceeded to hedge infallibility all around with limitations. Thus, one very restrictive reading of Pastor Aeternus is that the pope cannot declare anything infallibly that is not already part of the Depositum Fidei--and indeed, if one looks at the only two ex cathedra statements ever made, relating to the Marian doctrines, one finds that in both instances, the popes either formally or informally polled the bishops to determine support for his proposed action.

You have run across an interesting example of how the meaning or intention of a doctrinal principle can become totally inverted over time. Olivi made his claim in regard to the controversy regarding Franciscan poverty. You may or may not remember that the early Franciscans took vows of radical poverty, and this was seen by many as anti-clerical and intensely threatening to the institutional Church, so much so that Francis himself was almost condemned for heresy. Having gotten official papal sanction for the order and its way, however, there remained a nagging worry that what one pope gave, another could take away. Hence, Olivi developed the notion that papal pronoucnements on the faith were infallible and thus irreformable. If accepted, such a principle would automatically bind a pope to that which his predecessors had decreed; rather than expanding papal power, it was seen as a radical limitation upon it.

Over the centuries, however, the understanding of the principle became inverted, so that rather than limiting papal power, it was seen as implying that papal power is essentially unlimited.

It was in that ultra-ultramontanist form that the question of infallibility was put to the First Vatican Council, but after a few demonstrations of Pio Nono in operation, the Fathers of that council proceeded to hedge infallibility all around with limitations. Thus, one very restrictive reading of Pastor Aeternus is that the pope cannot declare anything infallibly that is not already part of the Depositum Fidei--and indeed, if one looks at the only two ex cathedra statements ever made, relating to the Marian doctrines, one finds that in both instances, the popes either formally or informally polled the bishops to determine support for his proposed action.

I agree with Moose that the situation with the Ruthenian Metropolia's hierarchy being appointed by Rome is comparable to Constantinople's appointing American Greek Orthodox Bishops. However, the American situation is sort of unique (arising after the disintegration of the Russian Church during Soviet oppression--the Russian Church originally governed the Orthodox Church here.) There are many who would like to see a resolution of the jurisdictional chaos. There's a lot of church politics involved. The American situation is less than a hundred years old which is not a long period when one is dealing with such issues.

Constantinople does not appoint Bishops for the OCA (who's autocephaly Constantinople does not recognize...but she does recognize our canonicity) nor for the vast majority of Orthodox Churches. (Very few Orthodox Churches are directly under the Ecumenical Patriarchate.)

Back to this thread...At a very minimum Rome will need to give greater autonomy to the Eastern Catholic Churches before Orthodox Churches would consider a union with Rome. Submitting a nominating list for episcopal elections to Rome for pre-approval would never be acceptable to Orthodox. (Of course, more would need to be addressed but this well illustrates the "problem" as Orthodox see it.)

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

The stated position of the Orthodox is not that Rome should give greater autonomy to the Eastern Catholic Churches before Orthodox Churches would consider a union with Rome, but that the Eastern Catholic churches should be dissolved.

On the theological level, in the various Catholic-Orthodox dialogues, the issue of episcopal selection has never been raised as a serious problem. Both Churches recognize that historically a variety of legitimate methods have been used for episcopal selection based on the needs of the time and location.

Both Orthodoxy and Catholicism have lived under the selection of bishops by civil appointment, election by Chapter, the laity, or a Synod, and appointment by some other hierarch such as the Pope or Patriarch.

To suggest that Orthodox should just enter union with Catholicism without reconciling some of these differences would serve neither of our Churches. I am surprised that some Catholics think this would be acceptable for Orthodox.

I realize my statement above was simplistic and I did not mean that was all there was to the differences. I meant it to illustrate some basic differences between Catholic and Orthodox approaches.

IMHO, it would go a LONG way towards possible reconciliation if Rome would allow greater autonomy for Eastern Catholic Churches...disbanding the Eastern Congregation in Rome would also help. Again, this is only a small part of the problems that would remain...but it would be a great first step.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

While I understand why eastern Catholic autonomy may look like something that would appeal to the Orthodox in theory, it seems fairly clear that it would not be the case in practice. It has taken some effort on the Vatican's part to move the Ukrainians, who represent a majority of Byzantine Catholics, into a stance that has been more favorably received by the Orthodox on a number of issues including property, ecumenism, proselytation, etc. Many Ukrainians feel that if they were only "unleashed" by Rome, Ukrainian Catholicism would sweep eastern Ukraine.

I would note, on your other point, that the trip to Romania was only made with some significant (to the Catholic side) concessions on the Holy Father's part. At the insistence of the Orthodox, the trip was characterized as exclusively an ecumenical visit to the Patriarch and not a pastoral visit to the Greek Catholics. The Pope agreed to the Orthodox request that his visits to the Greek Catholics be limited and private and not include a stop in Transylvania, the home of most Romanian Greek Catholics. It was only with papal urging that the Romanian Greek Catholics modified their property claims again to the benefit of the Orthodox.

As to the papal visit to Romania. Again, this plainly shows that there is no "stated position" by Orthodox that the Eastern Catholic Churches must be dissolved as was alleged by Kurt. For a balanced discussion of the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox issues I'd recommend the chapter in the volume _Quest for Unity_ jointly published by St Vladimir's Seminary Press and the United States Catholic Conference.

It is highly significant that as part of the trip to Romania John Paul celebrated the Divine Liturgy for Romanian Byzantine Catholics in Bucharest. Such would not have been part of the agreed arranged schedule if the Romanian Orthodox Church held that the Romanian Byzantine Catholic Church should be dissolved.

Ratzinger's document, which is worth reading, displays quite well the difficulties that remain to be overcome if East and West are to reestablish full communion. I would recommend it to any Catholic, Latin or Byzantine, to understand how far the Roman Church will need to come in order for her to reach an understanding of herself that is acceptable to the Orthodox.

I'm not so sure about your last statement. Ratzinger's document was written very recently, and specifically in the context of the review, recommended by the Pope, of the role of the Papacy in "Ut Unum Sint". The document was set against the background of ecumenical relations, and was explicitly intended to "recall the *essential* points of Catholic doctrine on the primacy" (the emphasis is in the original) in an "authoritative reaffirmation of these doctrinal achievements" -- a way of setting limits, in a sense, on the directions that the dialogue on this issue can take. At the conclusion of the document, answering the question "When and how will unity ... be reached?", Ratzinger's answer is "We are all invited to trust in the Holy Spirit, to trust in Christ, by trusting in Peter." It is a reiteration of the call to communion with Peter as the Papacy is now arranged, which includes the episcopal selection process.

When one examines the document to see what points of "essential doctrine" are expressed in it, it becomes very, very clear that there is a long, long way to go before Orthodox will accept a reunion with this kind of Papacy -- some of its features:

(1) the Roman Primacy is part of the "divine plan";

(2) "episcopal collegiality ... should not relativize [the personal exercise of the primacy]";

(3) that the Pope possesses "a truly episcopal power, not only supreme, full and universal, but also immediate, over all pastors and other faithful";

(4) "since the power of the primacy is supreme, there is no other authority to which the Roman Pontiff must juridically answer for his exercise of the gift he has received";

(5) "at the same time, it is clear that only the Pope (or the Pope with an Ecumenical Council) has, as the Successor of Peter, the authority and the competence to say the last word on the ways to exercise his pastoral ministry in the universal church";

(6) in practical terms, these powers would include, at least those mentioned as part of this document of "essential" doctrine: liturgical life, church discipline, selection of bishops, promulgating canon law, etc.

It is telling that this was issued only in November 1998, only 6 months ago. I don't mean to denigrate those who hold the views explained in this document. I only wish to point out that these views, which according to Rome (at least) are central to its doctrine, will not be acceptable to the Orthodox. Sweeping them under the rug isn't really an option when the senior people in the Vatican are saying that they are "essential doctrine". I think, in all honesty, we have to acknowledge that while there is a lot of goodwill at the moment (and this always helps!), we have a very long way to go to resolve these issues.

From a Catholic standpoint, every document is not a sui generis thought, but builds on the past. The Ratzinger document simply has to be understood in a way that does not view the pre 19th c. episcopal selection process invalid.