The ground has shifted under them.

If Moscow Patriarchate is really against ''eastern pope'', than bishop Hilarion is completely right. That phrase ''in communion with the See of Constantinople'' is completely unorthodox. The Constantinople was in heresy and schism many times, just like the pope of Rome.
But if bishop is against that because of ''Third Rome'', than it has also nothing to do with Orthodox faith.

Sorry, Andrew. I'm still finding your meaning a bit crytic. Could you please 'splain? (Or sum up?)

Gordo

There are various factors that have put Constantinople in a difficult position, some factors are things out of their control and some of the issues are of their own making. I think their main problem is they have a conception of how they want things to be, that on this conception diverges widely from the on the ground reality.

It's a matter of perception of whether or not Metropolitan's John's assessment of the Russians actions is correct, some will no doubt agree but many others will not. I think this mixed view of his opinion of the Russians reflects a wider split of opinion about Metropolitan John. It does remain a fact that the is a titular metropolitan of a vacant see, and therefore has a different level of accountability to the church. This last issue really underlies the ecclesiological problem that poses the most danger to Constantinople. The church is not an institution existing for its own purposes, and a hierarchy without a flock is not a living organism, but an anachronism.

Excellent point Andrew. One wonders whether it is really biblical to have such a thing as a "titular see." The whole notion of an auxillery bishop seems rather out of place as well. Perhaps what is needed is serious ecclesiastical reform. There should be one bishop per local Church with his council of priests and deacons. Any additional titles a Bishop might attain (Metropolitan, Patriarch, etc.) are purely honorary or at the most they designate a responsibility of coordination (much like the president of a parish council leads and facilitates the meetings).

Personally, I think that there is no need for a Roman curia. The Roman curia could be abolished and the Pope could be elected by those in Rome with the confirmation of regional bishops in the same way that other Patriarchs are elected.

Joe

Joe

Joe

The last sentence of your post is unclear and jumbled up.

(1) The Roman Curia does not elect the Pope; it merely assists the Pope in performing his day-to-day duties as the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church universal. It is co-terminus with the death of the Supreme Pontiff.

The sole elector of a new Pope is the College of Cardinals in conclave, i.e., by those Cardinals below 80 years of age. Our College of Cardinals, by special Church law, takes the place of the world Synod of Bishops (in the Catholic Church) or of the Holy Synod (in Orthodoxy).

(2) In Orthodoxy, is it not that the Hoy Synod elects the next Patriarch, without the "confirmation of regional bishops?"

I honestly don't know. But if the college of Cardinals is simply the holy synod of the Bishop of Rome then their function would be the same.

Joe

Joe,

We may certainly hope that these issues may be addressed at a future Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. Andrew is certainly right that the church is not an institution existing for its own purposes, and it just might be that a return to the concept of "one city, one bishop" (with his council of priests and deacons) would help the Church to focus on its true mission.


This would require, as a minimum, a major shift in operations, to ensure that the good work of the Curia (yes, some of it is good!) does not get eliminated or rendered ineffective.

Nevertheless, I do think you're right here. Having lived in Rome, I've heard things like "you don't want to know what goes on in the Roman Curia." I am inclined to think an institution whose structure lends itself to corruption like this (i.e. by concentrating a lot of power and prestige in the hands of an elite few) could actually be a detriment to the Church's mission.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Deacon Richard:

On the other hand, the Curia started as the Pope's diocesan administration. It has done good things, like seeing that the Ruthenian Rescension books were researched and published in 1940, something that is a project of enough size that it would have had to be underwritten by a government or a large collection of local Churches. And getting local Churches to get together is quite a cumbersome project. Look around and see how many projects have gotten done with the cooperation of lcoal Churches. It's also been able to keep some wide-ranging abuses in the English speaking Latin Church in check--see the rejection of the revised translation of the second edition of the Roman Missal. It's also been the vehicle for bringing together all the English speaking local Churches to provide common translations and provide some sort of uniformity.

Somehow bringing together people from all over the world has done some positive things and can provide an international perspective to anyone who studies there--something sadly lacking in many students and theologians today.

It seems, sadly enough, that for the Latin Church, the Roman Curia has been the only guarantee of the Faith being transmitted uniformly and authentically. For much of the history of the Latin Church, we have looked to Rome to send us orthodox bishops and set the standard for what we should believe. Maybe that's something we need to learn form our Orthodox brethren--that is, that each of us is responsible for maintaining the integrity and purity of the Faith rather than having it seem as if everyone is having a free-for-all until Rome pulls the rope tight and reels everyone back to where they ought to be.

BOB

I think it would be better for ordinary Catholics and ordinary Orthodox to get together and talk. Reunification isn't going to happen unless a miracle directly from God occurs. Far better we find out how we can, together, battle against secularism and the Culture of Death.

The hierarchs always seem to have something to argue about. Without bashing anyone, I grow tired of it. Hierarchs are men of God, called to serve Him, but are as suspect to the sin of pride as anyone else.

" I think it would be better for ordinary Catholics and ordinary Orthodox to get together and talk." said Mr. Clean.

I think so, too. In particular, the more talk there is between Orthodox and eastern Catholics the more eastern Catholics might be able to resist westernizing themselves to please their 300 pound gorilla neighbor, the Latin rite RCs.

Well, a majority of young Greek Orthodox around the country are taking that advice to a higher level: they are marrying Roman Catholics!

Alice

And then converting them to Orthodoxy . . . (or is it vice versa?)

That seems to be the trend, but sometimes there is no conversion. I see more than a few signs of the cross done the Latin way at Sunday Liturgy.

Regards,
Alice

Did this have to descend into a barb at the Latin Church?

That term makes me cringe, as if the sinister Latin Catholic laity - and most of us don't know much at all about our own Particular Church - had some "double secret plan" to squash every other Particular Catholic Church.

The "Latinizations" were done over a period of decades if not centuries and won't be reversed overnight.

Back to my point - we have a common enemy - or enemies - in secularism, radical Islam and the Culture of Death, all of which are a lot more important than most of what the hierarchs bicker about.