Pope Stresses Religious Liberty for Eastern Catholics Urges Greater Understanding between Christians of Different Rites

VATICAN CITY, MAY 12, 2003 (Zenit.org).- In his meeting with students of the Eastern rite Pontifical Seminaries of Rome, John Paul II appealed for peace, development, and religious liberty in countries inhabited by Eastern rite Catholics.

These Catholic communities, while in communion with the Bishop of Rome, differ from the Latin tradition in their various rites. According to the Pontifical Yearbook, there are five Eastern rite traditions: Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, Chaldean, and Byzantine or Constantinopolitan.

Although some of these Catholics have had to leave their countries because of persecutions or political and economic problems, the majority of these faithful are in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. They are spread over a wide geographic area that extends from North Africa to Asia.

"Turning to the many countries you come from," the Holy Father said, "I must strongly repeat the hope that peace will be ever more consolidated in that region; that fair and peaceful solutions will restore harmony and good living conditions to the populations so sorely tried by tensions and unjust oppression."

"May the Lord illuminate the leaders of nations so that they will courageously work, with respect for the law, for the good of everyone, and for the freedom of every religious community," he added.

The Pope exercises his ministry as Bishop of Rome to the Eastern rite Churches with the Vatican Congregation for the Oriental Churches, whose prefect is Cardinal Ignace Moussa I Daoud, patriarch emeritus of Antioch of the Syrians.

The Holy Father applauded this congregation's initiative to offer Arabic-speaking priests of different Eastern rites the possibility of a center of formation in Rome, at the College of St. Ephrem, to pursue their ecclesiastical studies and carry out apostolic activities.

John Paul II said this service is decisive for the "defense of the ritual identity and ecclesial and pastoral maturation" of these priests.

In particular, the Holy Father suggested "knowledge of the liturgy of the Oriental Churches and of the spiritual traditions of the Fathers and Doctors of the Christian East."

Lastly, the Pope encouraged greater mutual understanding between Latin and Eastern rite Catholics, to grow in "the unity" of the universal Church. It is necessary to "avoid tensions between Latins and Orientals and to stimulate dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox," he concluded.

ZE03051206

And may God bless him with good health and many years!

Could someone enlighten me as to how "the Vatican Congregation for the Oriental Churches" functions? Do I understand correctly that it is a kind of supra-synod?

Christ is Risen! Truly He is Risen!

Andrew

The Vatican congregations are akin to our US government departments, i.e., State, Defense, Education, etc. They operate as administrative entities that examine problems/situations and issue regulations and "standards" (just like OSHA for workplace health and safety, or the IRS for taxation). Supposedly, they act under the direct guidance of the Holy Father, but in reality they only refer major issues "upstairs".

In the past, the Congregation for the Oriental Churches was headed by a Roman Cardinal, but over the past 30 years or so, an effort has been made to have one of us Easterns head up the congregation. However, I believe that the majority of members of the Congregation are Roman Catholics.

(Was anyone else disquieted by the use of Eastern "rites" in the Zenit news report? Grrrrr!)

Christ is Risen!

This is good news. I pray that this "religious liberty" for us Eastern Catholics will also happen here in the U.S. I mean our right to practice our unique liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony freely and without reservations.

But what exactly is "religious liberty" for us Eastern Catholics on this side of the pond?

Ordaining the married?

Dear Andrew:

I wish to add to Dr. John's post on the COC dicastery:

The Congregation for the Oriental Churches is one of the MAJOR departments of the Roman Curia (there are numerous other offices and services) which assist the Pope, as Supreme Pontiff of the universal Church, in the Petrine Ministry.

By Papal fiat, it is now ALWAYS headed by a Prefect appointed by the Pope from any of the Eastern hierarchs in the Catholic communion.

The Congregation is made up of a Cardinal Prefect (who directs and represents it with the help of a Secretary and Undersecretary) and 27 Cardinals, one Archbishop, and 4 Bishops, designated by the Pope. Currently, the Prefect of the Congregation is HB Ignace Moussa Cardinal Daoud, the Patriarch Emeritus of the Syrian Catholics.

Members BY RIGHT are the Patriarchs and the Major Archbishops of the Oriental/Eastern Churches and the President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Unity among Christians. Accordingly, the Oriental/Eastern Churches are a very significant minority.

The work of the Cardinal members, gathered in special ordinary and plenary assemblies, is to define the most important questions, while regular issues are dealt with by His Eminence Cardinal Ignace Moussa Daoud, assisted by the Secretary His Excellency Antonio Maria Vegliò and by the Undersecretary Mons. Krzystof Nitkiewicz in collaboration with the Officials and Consultors. According to the different fields of competency the Dicastery is assisted by a College of about 50 Consultors who offer professional advice on particular questions or matters of great significance.

In addition, the everyday work of the Dicastery is being carried out by a staff of 29 people.

The Congregation's responsibilities were notably increased by Pope Pius XI with the Motu Proprio Sancta Dei Ecclesia of March 25, 1938. More recently Pope Paul VI (Regimini Ecclesiae Universae) and Pope John Paul II (Pastor Bonus) further clarified the scope of the Dicastery, which exercises the same authority over eparchies, bishops, clergy, religious and faithful of the Oriental Rite as do the Congregations for the Bishops, for the Clergy, for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and the Societies of Apostolic Life and for Catholic Education respectively over the dioceses, bishops, clergy, religious and faithful of the Latin Rite.

In addition, it has exclusive authority over the following regions: Egypt and the Sinai peninsula, Eritrea and Northern Ethiopia, Southern Albania and Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Jordan and Turkey.

Under the Congregation, as funding resources in addition to the contributions of the Holy See, are ROACO (or, in English: "Reunion of Aid Agencies for the Oriental Churches"), the US-based CNEWA ("Catholic Near East Welfare Association"), and SICO (or, in English: "Information Service of the Oriental Churches").

Hope this helps.

AmdG

Dear (Ecumenical) Reader Andrew,

To be fair to the Oriental Congregation, one must also add that its institutional predecessor in history was the congregation in charge of the evangelization of pagans etc. to which the Eastern Churches in union with Rome were added on by way of an ecclesial appendage . . .

Historically as well, Eastern Catholic Church patriarchs and primates - and their Churches - felt that this Congregation exercised undue control over their own internal matters as if to express a decided lack of trust in their ability to run their own affairs.

Cardinals of this congregation could, by virtue of their position, be an overlord to an Eastern Catholic Patriarch - whose rank is certainly beyond that of any simple, I-can-vote-for-a-pope Cardinal.

Given its past, there is no reason for the continued existence of this congregation, this bureaucratic left-over of a triumphalist Roman past.

It should have been discarded as highly offensive to the Particular Eastern Catholic Churches a long time ago.

Or else its former pagan focus could be readjusted to work with the many lapsed Latin Catholics in the West.

Alex

Alex:

In the current set-up of the Congregation, your statement quoted below probably is based on misinformation and, I may say, another Latin-bashing:



The head of the dicastery is an Eastern hierarch. The Patriarchs and Major Archbishops of all the other Eastern Churches are, OF RIGHT, members of the Congregation. The Latin cardinals appointed by the Pope to this curial department are UNDER, or work along with, the Prefect of the Congregation. The 50 or so Consultors are, well, just consultants.

No Latin cardinal "overlord" possible (or allowed)here, paisano!

Except, of course, the Pope.

AmdG

Dear Amado,

Historically, that "Congregation" was ruled by Latins who regarded Eastern Catholics as "incomplete Catholics" and the fact that this was a congregation aimed at converting pagans et al. says nothing good about its background either.

That today the Eastern Catholic Churches are allowed, by Rome's gracious benevolence, to participate or even head such a "congregation" doesn't change one iota of its past - or of the continued effrontery of having such a congregation to do what EVERY Particular Catholic Church of the East can and is entrusted to do.

This isn't "Latin bashing" and I'm truly sorry you had to resort to that sort of name-calling here.

(I would ask for the Moderator and/or Administrator to make a judgement here whether I am Latin bashing.)

If this is Latin bashing, so is every single criticism ever laid here by Eastern Catholics regarding Latinizations.

And so is the Vatican document of January 6, 1996 where many Latinizations are described.

I lived through a period where our Patriarch, the Confessor Josef Slipyj, suffered under the chicanery of the "Oriental Congregation."

It should have been discarded by the Vatican long ago and is an enduring relic of ancient Latin triumphalism with respect to the East in general, and the Eastern Catholic Churches "in Particular."

What I've said here is nothing other than what many others before have said, especially in the movement for the creation of a Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate.

I am opposed to injustice in the Church, nomatter who commits it. In this case, it is a Latin congregation which is the offending party, a congregation that was also formerly entrusted with the Inquisition.

I'm also against the Inquisition and condemn this congregation for its past ties with that institution too.

Alex

Well said, Alex...

In Christ,
Theophilos

Amen.

Alex:

Relax, I am just clarifying things.

And then you say:



Please specify for me what the "injustice" you are attributing to the Oriental Congregation.

The predecessor of the COC was first established by Pope Pius IX on January 6, 1862 and began as part of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. Pope Benedict XV declared it independent on May 1, 1917. I think the Oriental Congregation NEVER, repeat NEVER, had anything to do with the inquisition.

On the other hand, the original Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and formerly known as the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, headed by Cardinal Ratzinger), was founded in 1542 by Pope Paul III, The old Congregation was solely responsible for the inquisition.

Thanks for bearing with me.

AmdG

Dear Amado,

I'm too involved in these issues to relax, Big Guy!

The Oriental Congregation was founded as a separate entity with its own independent organizational structure on the date you mention.

But the affairs of that Congregation belonged to the composite role of the Congregation you also mention that had responsibility for the Inquisition.

In other words, the Eastern Catholic Churches were under the umbrella Congregation of the same organizational unit that was charged with responsibility for the Inquisition and for the care of pagan lands.

That is what we have always found objectionable, offensive and intolerable.

That is why many of us wish Rome would simply can that congregation.

What I find offensive is your charging me with "yet another" (words to that effect) anti-Latin whatever.

Today is the commemoration in Florence of Jerome Savonarola who was killed under Pope Alexander VI.

Pope Julius II wished to canonize Savonarola, who has always enjoyed a cult in the Dominican Order and in Florence where St Philip Neri and St Catherine of Genoa, both from Florence, developed a strong private devotion to Savonarola.

When told by the Vatican officials that such a canonization would be inconvenient given the enduring power of the Medicis, Julius was unmoved.

He was then advised about the embarassment the Church would suffer in canonizing someone that it had put to death, in effect . . .

The Pope responded with, "The confession of sin is not what defiles (in admitting involvement in Savonarola's death) but it is the sin itself that defiles."

So it is with this congregation and its prior history (in terms of Eastern CAtholiic Churches management) with the other congregation.

Alex

So then, Gentlemen, thank you,

If I understand correctly, the Congregation is indeed a supra-synod, or in other words, a body which has jurisdiction over the synods of the supposedly sui juris Churches.

Is it true to state that the Eastern Catholics are a minority, albeit a significant minority, of this body? Are the Cardinals and/or consultors non-voting members? How does this body come to decisions? Do those present by RIGHT vote, or do all vote, if voting occurs at all? Perhaps they vote on recommendations which are then fowarded to the Pope of Rome?

In Christ,
Andrew

The very existence of this congregation shows that Rome spits on the very nature of the sui juris Churches, existing in papal and imperialistic arrogance. What would the Latins think if it was the other way around with the Easteners having an 'occidental congregation' for the Latins on their soil and canonical territory?

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Alex,

I also admire Jerome Savonarola. I even read a book about him. I'm really less narrow-minded and more ecumenical than people realize.

Christ is Risen!
Andrew

Our beloved St Maxim Grek was a former disciple of Savonarola, and brought a depth and breadth to the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as defending our two-fingered sign of the cross.

Spasi Khristos,
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Reader Andrew,

A number of Orthodox commentators have spoken highly of him and there is a positive article on him on at least one Traditionalist Orthodox site that I've seen.

One of his students left Italy in disgust over the way his teacher, Jerome, was treated and became Orthodox in Russia.

Today, he is known as "St Maximos the Greek" and was glorified an Orthodox saint in 1988 for the 1,000th anniversary of Christianity in Rus.

Believe it or not . . .

Alex

Dear Alex,

We should remember that St Maxim was a Coriote and Orthodox by birth. He lapsed from Orthodoxy, probably tactically to gain a renaissance humanist education, fleeing Florence after the execution of Savanorola and returning to Orthodoxy, becoming a monk of Mount Athos. He was 'loaned to the Russians for book correction, but falling foul of the authorities never left Russia, being kept under monastic 'house arrest'. He has been venerated by Old Believers since his blessed repose.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Should have read that St Maxim was a Corfiote. (If the word has an e?)

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

Well, a number of Orthodox Saints were formerly lapsed Orthodox, including, I might add, the newly glorified Hieromartyr, Arsenius Matsievich, Metropolitan of Rostov, a former Eastern Catholic.

The point is that Maximos was Catholic enough to become a Dominican Monk under the tutelage of Savonarola - and certainly there were many Greeks and Russians who absolutely loved the Baroque and Renaissance cultural achievements of Western Europe.

It was because Maximos took his Catholicism seriously that he spent the rest of his life castigating the West etc.

And he, of course, defended the Old Rite traditions for which he was much maligned and persecuted - just as St Anna of Kashin was "decanonized" in such an unprecedented move for her devotion to Old Rite traditions and as was another St Euthymius "decanonized" even though he was glorified by Patriarch Nicon himself when he was Metropolitan.

(Do you see how much I know about the Old Believers? ).

I think Maximus' glorification in 1988 was one in a series of overtures to the Old Believers of Russia by the ROC - other "Yedinovertsy" New Martyrs were glorified in AD2000.

Our Metropolitan St Andrij Sheptytsky died while reading a book on Savonarola to whom he had a great private devotion.

For wearing a medal of "Il Beato Girolamo Savonarola," St Philip Neri's cause of canonization was early called into question until the Pope of the day ordered that issue "praetermissus" or "passed over."

Could you believe that Amado called me "Anti-Latin?"

Perhaps I should consider that a compliment

Alex

Was Arsenii the one imprisoned by Ekaterina the 'Great'?

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

Yes indeed!

And, as you know, a number of Russian aristocrats venerated his memory by actually building small copies of his prison in their extensive gardens!

He was walled up and basically starved to death, but the authorities refused to tell the local people about who their prisoner was . . .

When it was noticed through the peep-hole that he had died, the authorities called for a doctor to confirm that he had died.

As the doctor came into the prison cell, he saw before him a bright shining light with a Metropolitan standing before him in all his robes and other finery!

He ran down stairs and yelled at the authorities, "You didn't tell me you had a bishop locked up there!"

This was to be the first of over 200 miracles that were written down and approved by the church authorities for his glorification, which should have occurred in 1918, but which was not due to the Revolution.

Alex

Spasi Khritos!

A bad day Alex - I'm spelling everything wrong!!!
Spasi KhriStos!

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

Is "Spasi Khristos" something that a layman like myself may say?

Alex

Yes indeed Alex, it's an Old Believer, thankyou, goodbye, bon voyage,and so on... as of course is Spasi Bog, or Spasi Gospodi.

Dear friends,

Let's try and keep this topic on target. While the history of Savonarola and his disciples is very interesting, it is veering away from the discussion at hand: Eastern Catholics and their relationship with Rome.

Regarding the Congregation for the Oriental Churches at Rome...

The latest information that I have is that the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs and Major Archbishops are only ASSOCIATE members of the Congregation. Only Cardinals are full voting members, most of whom are Latin.

It is possible that this situation has changed in recent years. Does Amado have more recent information on this? Are the Eastern Patriarchs now full members? I haven't seen anything to this effect.

Anthony

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

Since I have sinned quite a bit today in not doing what I should have been doing, I'll sign off now by saying:

SPASI KHRYSTOS!

Alex

Alex:


Implicitly making Savonarola as a victim of the Congregation of the Holy Office (or Universal Inquisition) is a sleight of hand.

The Congregation was established as a curial department in 1542, or at least 44 years AFTER the Savonarola incident of 1498.

Even the Inquisition Congregation cannot be faulted for this sordid event, much less the Oriental Congregation which was established more than 300 years later.

For sure, the Church at large was responsible for this "chicanery." And, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, found the courage to ask forgiveness in behalf of the Catholic Church for such and other acts during his recent trip to Greece.

And so it was written; unless, there is a revised Church history somewhere out there.

Thanks for bearing with my persistence.


AmdG

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