I think that the whole issue of the Oriental Congregation represents a serious question of how the Roman See interprets the existence of the Eastern Churches. While I can easily understand the "old" role of bringing the schismatics out of schism and into union with Rome, the whole thrust of Vatican II and the most wonderful efforts of John XXIII, Paul VI (and Athenagoras) and now John Paul II, seem to make that "old" role an anachronism.

I think that in some ways, the relationships between Rome and the Eastern Churches should be housed in the office of the Secretary of State, i.e., the diplomatic corps. [Stop your dancing and sit down, Alex.] Why, because allowing the diplomats to handle "external affairs" grants status to the Eastern Churches (in union and not) and removes them from the "retarded relatives" perspective that has oftentimes obtained in the past.

There has been, however, one very important product of the urgings of the Oriental Congregation. In their perspective that the East had to be as organized and zik-zak as the Roman Church, they pushed for scholarship and the creation of standarized liturgical texts -- but then, by gum, you'd better use them fully and without emendation.

I think they went too far when they "gave us" the Eastern Canon Law. Granted, the Rudder is not quite as organized or indexed as the canon law 'gift', but it serves Orthodoxy quite well, and should serve us as well too. (And how, in heaven's name can one assume to incorporate the ecclesiology of Russia with that of the East Syrians in Lebanon, or with that of the Ethiopians. It's like giving a "universal" bread recipe and saying everyone should use it. No more injera; no more black rye; no more pita. Just Panis Romana.)

Christ is Risen!!

Anthony,

Please tell me. What is the true nature of our bishops' leadership role if there exists the full authority of the Pope, the Congregation afore-mentioned, and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops here in this country?

There seems to be a lot of strings attached. Or am I seeing things?

Have our bishops ever conducted and participated in a synod on their own? Would that be against their role and status?

The recent address given by the Holy Father implies that "religious liberty" is a worthy cause. What exactly does that mean when 'sui juris' only looks good on paper? What exactly does 'sui juris' mean? How do we know if a sui juris church is being sui juris?

Some suggest that we merely replaced the overabused term "rite" to refer to our relationship with Rome to that of another meaningless and un-substantial term "sui juris?"

Will our Metropolitan be receiving the pallium?

Just wondering.

Joe

Joe, both the Ukrainians and Melkites have synodal meetings of their bishops. I can't speak for the Melkites but the Ukrainians have an annual Patriarchal Sobor.

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
In the eyes of many of us Eastern Catholics (as well as some Latins), the Congragation for Eastern Churches represents a kind of "Colonial Office". It does not matter that for the first time an Eastern Catholic is the head of said congragation, it function is still the same. That is, it acts as a sort of super-patriarch over our Holy Synods. I would hope that with an Eastern Catholic as its head the congragation would transform itself into more of an embassy to the Eastern Churches.

Poosh BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

Dear Amado,

Actually my reference to Savonarola did not intend to do what you interpreted it doing here - I was trying to use him as an example and also because yesterday was his local feast day .

He was a victim of the Borgias and of Pope Alexander VI - a despicable pope, to say the least.

Alexander VI excommunicated Savonarola and then lifted the anathema just before his martyrdom.

There is a society dedicated to the canonization of Savonarola that has published a number of works on his life.

The Dominicans said private Masses to Blessed Girolamo Savonarola for years afterwards and he is still venerated privately in the Order that promotes his canonization - a canonization that has been reintroduced by the Archbishop of Florence.

So there is nothing anti-papal or anything like that with respect to Savonarola.

Alex

Dear Dr. John,

O.K., now that I'm sitting down . . .

Isn't it sufficient that the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches connect with the Pope or the necessary Vatican Congregation whenever they need anything from Rome?

And shouldn't the Pope be able to call on any Eastern Patriarch or Primate directly without going through Vatican red tape?

There is no need for the Oriental Congregation and there is no need for Apostolic Nuncios in countries of the East where there is an EC Patriarch or other Primate.

But do be careful - I feel that we are coming close to being "Anti-Latin" yet again!

Alex

Alex:




The "Apostolic Nuncios" are "ambassadors-at-large" and are seconded to the secular or civilian government of the host country, whether of the East or of the West.

Religious patrimony does not determine the exchange of ambassadors or legates between and among sovereign states like, for instance, between the Vatican and Russia, which have exchanged diplomatic representatives. The Russian Orthodox Church does not come into play.

Because the Vatican (or the Holy See), as a City endowed with the attributes of a sovereign state by international law and comity, has for its subjects or "citizens" the Catholics in the host country their well-being becomes the "primary" responsibility of her Nuncios.

An adjunct role of the Nuncios is, of course, their serving as the "conduit" between the local Church hierarchy and the Vatican.

AmdG

Dear Amado,

You are right and I concede this point to you.

But Nuncios, like the Nuncio to Ukraine, do tend to develop a "bossiness" toward, in this case, the UGCC.

If Nuncios are what you say, then let them stay out of Eastern Catholic Church business in their host country.

They should not be seen to have a precedence over the Patriarch or other Primate whatsoever.

Alex

Dear Alex:




Only in diplomatic circles WERE the Nuncios "seen to have a precedence," they being "elected" or "regarded" by all the other ambassadors in the host country as "Dean of the Diplomatic Corps." This "tradition" arose in diplomacy because Vatican diplomacy pre-existed long before the birth of diplomacy as we see it today. I am uncertain, though, whether they still are.

Personally, I have not seen nor read about their perceived "precedence" over Patriarchs and Primates in a given host country. It could have happened or it could happen.

But, in the normal course of things, the Nuncios should interact, in exercising their adjunct role as the Vatican's "conduit" to the local Church, with the established heirarchy which is usually the national episcopal Conference.

Perhaps, in some liturgical celebrations, the Apostolic Nuncio, being a guest of the host country, is granted that privilege of precedence as a sign of hospitality?

How long will you be gone a-working? Please don't keep us waiting for your return any longer than is necessary.


AmdG

Dear Amado,

Well, if you were our Apostolic Nuncio, there wouldn't be any problem.

(Would you like to be one? I do know the Undersecretary of State for the Vatican personally you know! You are married? That's O.K., just don't tell them you are!)

We're on the verge of an election here in Ontario, but the Speaker has found a "prima facie" case of contempt exercised by the provincial government for reading the Budget outside the legislature . . .

That's what's holding me up.

Actually, Vatican bureaucracy would probably be a welcome change here . . .

Alex