Just thinking out loud, really, but let me throw this out for discussion. Let us say that Rome places all it's cards on the table, and seriously talks reunion. Papal supremacy, infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc, all thrown out. Along with the dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception. Vatican I and II are condemned, and all western councils after the schism are recognized as local councils only. The Filoque is downgraded to a local tradition. Constantinople retains primacy of honor. Rome is replaced in the dyptichs in the 5th spot, behind Jerusalem, and in front of Moscow, as penance for the schism, but still retaining the distinction of being one of the ancient Patriarchates. Western Metropolitanates are established in Munich, Stockholm, Paris, Madrid, Prague, Bratislava, Warsaw, London, Dublin, Tokyo, New York, Mexico City, Buenos Aries, Sao Paulo and Sydney. All Catholic bishops and cardinals are brought before a panel of their fellow Orthodox bishops and proven Catholic bishops, and evaluated on their orthodoxy. Those proven orthodox retain their episcopacy. Those who do not, are retired to monasteries. Russia, Greece and Serbia can provide enough temporary bishops to cover the west until their own can be trained. Eastern Churches in western lands and western Churches in Eastern lands would be metochions of their respective patriarchates.

Any takers?


Alexandr

Alexandr,

I like a lot of wat you post, but, my response is as follows:

Even if I accepted it, the Holy Spirit would disallow it! To quote St. Gregory of Nyssa: "According to the privilege granted him by the Lord, he (Peter) is that unbreakable and most solid rock upon which the Savior built his Church." (PG 46 733). Slava Isusu Christu!

Deacon Robert Behrens
Holy Ghost Byzantine Catholic Church
Jessup, Lackawanna County, Pa.
Eparchy of Passaic
Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh
USA

It's funny you mention this. I dreamed the same thing last night. However , I woke up.

Alexandr, you have an interesting idea and I like the idea, although I think you are letting Rome off lightly. Something to think about. Again we are talking about what if. This is only an idea.. darn it. :-)

Sounds like capitulation, not reconciliation.

In my own opinion the only real formula for ending the schism is the one proposed by Bishop Zoghby. It seems very few people on either side give it much credence.

Amen!

I think Alexandr's "modest proposal" reflects a certain end of the theological continuum. Its corresponding opposite pole is reflected in the thought of the uber-Latinists who accuse the Orthodox of heresy and of being in need of absorption into Roman Catholicism of the Eastern-rite under the supreme power of the Pontiff. Somehow I think there is a via media more reflective of the mutual respect and love due to all churches involved.

Just my two cents...

Gordo

Instead of reinforcing the orthodoxy (little "o") of RC bishops, it would open the floodgates of modernism as well.

Alexandr ,

Would you accept this scenario with the this change: Rome retains primacy of honor, and does no penance for schism.

blessings,

Lance

A Byzantine Christian in a Postmodern World

Safe to say, I think this one is a no go. Ecumenical councils such as Lyon II, Florence, Trent, and Vatican I are key, core normative, essential ones to the immutable fullness of the Catholic faith and witness to the world. They can no more be tampered with than Nicaea I and Nicaea II can.

Best to all,
Robster

Acceptance of those for Orthodox Christians would be capitulation. It's a Catch 22. That's probably why Bishop Hilarion is probably correct in his assessment of the situation.

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/291586#Post291586

There is no way that this will happen period!
Stephanos I

Just imagine what would result if I were to write the same proposal in reverse!

Fr. Serge

This kind of talk, as the first poster wrote, is a game, loss of time, vanity.

The end is near and we are blind. If the man would be aware, he would tear from dawns to dusk.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have much mercy upon me a sinner!

Have mercy, God, have much mercy upon all the souls and the whole sorrowful nature.

Amin.

m+

My word, how am I to respond to this utterly contemptible piece
of nonsense and not get banned?

Kudos to Archmandrite Serge and Father Deacon Robert for their
self-restraint.

Administrators: either shut this thread down at once or announce
that anything goes.

Edmac

Benedicite!
Do unto others...



Sorry! No takers!

That's like asking you if Orthodoxy accepted it was in schism, accepted all the post-Schism Western councils as Ecumenical, accepted that Papal Universal Jurisdiction and Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception were dogmas of the True Faith, that Orthodoxy has strayed from the Ancient Faith in regards to contraception and divorce, would you take it?

Obviously not, and it's sort of insulting to even ask. Who would take such a deal?

Alexis

I couldn't even begin to accept such a proposal, I'm afraid. While I do think that Rome currently exercises too much influence on the internal operations of the various Catholic Churches, I also absolutely affirm that Rome has a unique place and authority within the Communion, and that this is not a "human development", but is part of the definition of the Church. How this role is exercised is something that must be discussed and settled by both sides, but I can't accept any proposal that simply denies this ancient reality, even as a Melkite.

I certainly don't see how Rome could be placed behind Constantinople in any way, and personally it seems like an insult to the Apostles Peter and Paul to place their Church behind one that was essentially brought up by Imperial authority centuries after Christ. Obviously I love the tradition of Constantinople, and it's the tradition of my Church (in spirit, if not yet by Canonical jurisdiction), but Constantinople has no place replacing the ancient Rome.

As for the other aspects of your proposal, I feel they're up for discussion. My main issue is with apparent disregard for Rome and its ancient and Apostolic prerogatives, which are aspects of the Church I can't deny in good conscience, not out of submission to the Pope (and I love the current Pope of Rome very dearly), but out of submission to the Apostolic Tradition.

In fact, if such a proposal were accepted by the Catholic hierarchy, I'd have serious misgivings, and likely join whatever "Eastern Catholic" splinter group that would arise in hopes that the "real Catholic Church" would emerge again. Perhaps we'd be called the "Catholic Old Believers"?

Peace and God bless!

Oh my! Who'd a thunk that my mere musing would generate such a vehement response! For years now, on this forum, I have suffered through Roman attempts to out do a Philadelphia lawyer in trying to rationalize the filoque, Papal supremacy, Papal infallibility, etc, etc, etc, downplaying their importance, trying vainly to define it in a way that does not mean what it means, all so that the Orthodox would accept them. It has been enough to cross one's eyes! All I attempted to do was to portray a view of reunion as the Orthodox would see it. I am not a lawyer, and one does not need to be one in order to know when one is being snookered. The Roman Church believes these things are a part of their faith and will not, if the responses received thus far are any indication, surrender them for the sake of unity. Just be aware, my Roman friends that the Orthodox view these same things as diametrically opposed to the faith, and will not accept them under any circumstances, 50 dollar explanations and verbal contortions, notwithstanding.

So maybe Vladika Hilarion is right. Why waste time trying to reconcile 2 irreconcilable points of view, when such time and effort would be better spent in fighting humanism and the hagarenes.

Alexandr

I still prefer the Zoghby initiative:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

Alexandr,

I think the visceral reaction you see (although that is something of an exaggeration) is particularly to the notion that Rome must now do "penance" for the schism or for so-called "heresy" by losing its proper place in the Pentarchy. Faithful Catholics believe that Rome's Petrine primacy is not simply a matter of pious tradition or even based on a shifting Imperial polity (where is the Imperium these days, BTW?), but rather it is based on the will of Jesus Christ for an Apostolic See which was the site of the martyrdom of the Prince of the Apostles and the Missionary to the Gentiles as well as the matrix (or "womb") of Christian unity, as the Fathers called the Church of Rome. Peter's peripatetic ministry begun in Jerusalem was finally and firmly rooted in the city of Rome, which received his martyr's blood as testimony to his rock solid Faith. So as a matter of Catholic faith, the place of the Apostolic See, the place of Elder Rome is not subject even to the whims of a majority vote of an ecumenical council.

It was not for nothing that every other patriarchal see in the Pentarchy defined itself according to an explicit Petrine connection: Constantinople - St. Andrew, Peter's brother, Antioch - St. Peter ministry, Alexandria - St. Mark, Peter's disciple, with Jerusalem as the site of the whole Apostolic college with Peter exercising primacy in the midst of his brother apostles as entrusted to him by Jesus Christ until beginning his itinerant ministry where St. James was left to preside over the local church.

Regarding the other matters, not all points are in every way irreconcilable. I do believe that second millennium definitions in the West can be re-read and properly refined in light of the first millennium tradition as well as certain theological developments within Orthodoxy in the second millennium. Second millennium definitions are far from perfect even from a Catholic point of view (recent popes have said as much, I believe), even if they are seen as authoritative, infallible and irreformable. But to present your proposal as the be all end all to ecumenical relations between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is a bit over the top, is it not? Do you really think that if your proposal cannot be accepted here on this forum, theological dialogue is a waste of time?

In ICXC,

Gordo

Gordo,

I'm continually puzzled by the odd claims that there's something intrinsically wrong, flawed and/or in desparate need of massive refinement with the normative, immutable teaching witness of the Church at Lyons II, Florence, Trent, and Vatican I. I would certainly say no more than there's any problem or issue with first millennium tradition.

For the sake of paving the way toward unity all around, how would folks react if I were to propose that the normative infallible elements of the first millenium are in real need of re-reading, selective editing, and refinement in light of the undeniable truths and treasures of the second millenium, the incomparable insights and brilliance of the Church's theological giants and masters in medieval Latin scholasticism, as well as the valuable piety and truths that could be gleaned from Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, and Iconoclasts?

Best,
Robster

There are two different points of view, and from each side, that point of view is valid...and therefore, each side should try to respect the other's feelings.

I respect all that Rob and Gordon have set forth from their points of view regarding the role of the Papacy, as much as I respect Alexandr's Orthodox point of view.

If only there was a way to find common ground somewhere in between....but, unfortunately 1000 years of differing cultural understanding and approaches, as well as ecclesiastical estrangement, will take time. Fortunately, we have esteemed clerics who meet yearly towards this cause of rapprochement.

For the record, I do not think that any one needs to seek penance of the other...

In any case, let's not allow this to disintigrate into a polemic, because that will only serve the delight of the evil one.

Perhaps we have said enough...

In Christ,
Alice, Moderator

Rob,

Any rereading that I would propose would be according to the same authentic spirit and method of the reform and renewal of the Second Vatican Council. Even a cursory read of the conciliar texts of Vatican II reveals a qualitative (and in my own mind, superior) difference as compared to earlier conciliar texts of the second millennium, such as that of the very lop-sided Vatican I Council. The difference? Ad Fontes - a return to the sources of Tradition in East and West.

That said, even Vatican II, while authoritative, is not "perfect."

Finally, sorry to say, but I think you go quite beyond Catholic sense and sensibility (and the Magisterium of the Church) if you are comparing our Orthodox brothers and sisters to Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, and Iconoclasts.

God bless,

Gordo

Alice,

As Father Serge reminds us, the decisions of these meetings are not binding in any way on the parties involved or their respective churches. But I do believe they serve an essential purpose of helping us to understand - and value in a certain respect - the differences which exist and have developed over time. These differences have often produced a greater distance, in letter or in spirit, from an earlier time of unity and are not solely the result of Western developments. Rapproachment is thus facilitated, IMHO, by ressourcement on both sides, but always in light of the "new situation", to quote Pope John Paul II of blessed memory. Thus the Spirit of the Fathers of the unified Church can speak anew to every age and situation.

God bless,

Gordo

While I think that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with Alexandr's proposal, I must confess that it is unrealistic. I think a more realistic proposal would be for Rome to renounce Vatican I, to remove the filioque from the Creed, and to regard second millenium developments in Roman Catholic theology as theolugemon (sp?) of the West. I do not think that it is essential that Rome have the first position in the Church, but out of charity I think it would be wise to restore Rome to her former position.

In my view (and in the view of many Orthodox theologians) the patriarchates are not of apostolic/divine institution but rather are of political institution. There is no reason why the ecumenical patriarchate shouldn't be transferred to Moscow, since it is now the largest of all of the Orthodox Churches. In the event of reunion, Rome would be the largest of the Churches.

Joe

Alice,

My regrets if my post is coming off in such a negative light. For what it's worth, I'm not saying anything with regard to the Eastern Orthodox, only toward a Catholic approach that doesn't seem to value and uphold the immutable fullness of the Catholic faith. I'll strive to be as non-polemical as possible, and I will make this my last post on the thread.

I do think there are issues with the millieu of ecumenism ushered into the Church in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council.

But I think a more immediate issue is the disturbing manner in which it appears many Byzantine Catholics choose to approach ecumenism. Namely, it appears that there are only some, select non-Catholics who are worthy of seriously pursuing reunion with, while certain key, immutable aspects of the faith, ones that seem to tend not to be as prominent within the scope of Byzantine Catholic life, can be tampered with, spin, spun, and transformed into ecclesiastical bargaining chips.

On the other hand, there appear to be other non-Catholics, ranging from Protestants, to Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and the various 1st millenium 'heretics' who don't appear to be worth the time of day, and that any thought of even raising a question about a semi-colon in 1st millenium teaching to further reunion efforts is unthinkable.

I think Catholicism calls for far more thoughtfulness and balance than this. And I think all periods that have promulgated immutable Catholic teaching deserve equal respect, and that the holy pontiffs who presided during the 1054-1950 period are deserving of more than implications that they processed to the John Williams theme song of 'The Empire Strikes Back'.

Best to all,
Robster

Robster,

I think your point is fair. I would add that it does seem at times that there is too much vagueness and equivocation on the Catholic side in ecumenical talks, at least, vagueness and equivocation by the theological representatives in talks. I don't think that the CDF is vague or equivocal.

I think we must see that each Church claims that it is the true Church of Christ and yet only one Church is correct. However it may be that, from the Roman Catholic point of view, Orthodox Christians participate (imperfectly) in the reality of the Church; we must still recognize that Rome is claiming that the Church of Christ, in the most true and full sense, is that Church (or Churches) under the authority of the Pope. And from the Orthodox side, we must state clearly that any Church that is not in communion with us and does not share our faith fully, is not the true Church of Christ. This we must say while recognizing elements of truth and sanctification that exist in the Roman Catholic Church and in other non-Orthodox communions.

Joe

Joe,



With due respect, I think this "dilemma" is a false one. The exchange of letters between Metropolitan Damaskinos and Cardinal Ratzinger (old friends from before VCII) after the issuance of Dominus Jesus in 2000 addresses, in part, why it is false.

The logic should be: "each church believes itself to be the one holy catholic and apostolic church". Both are right. But, they are not in full communion with each other. Why NOT?

As they each expressed the question they first asked each other pre-VCII: We usually ask "Should we be in full communion with each other?" What we should be asking is: "Given the prayer of Christ, whose Church it is, on what (theological) basis do we justify denying fully communion with each other?"

Best,
Michael

P.S. I don't know if the exchange is online, the book is listed here:

Joseph Ratzinger, "Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith"

But the CDF is clear that the true Church "subsists" in the Catholic Church (governed by the successor of St. Peter) and that the Orthodox Churches are in imperfect communion with the Church (hence they are defective).

Joe

From the CDF:

What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

RESPONSE

Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.[7]

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]

THIRD QUESTION

Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”?

RESPONSE

The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.[11]

“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”[12].


Full document here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...stiones_en.html

I don't see how it can get any clearer than this.

Joe

Joe,


That was quick!

As to "imperfect communion" and "defectiveness": do you doubt for a minute that Latin Bishops who do their own thing without regard for the doctrine or traditions of the Church, or even the sensibilities (sensus fidei) of the faithful (including their own priests), are "defective" in their communion with the Catholic Church?

Cardinal Ratzinger says, with a note of exasperation (which I would have loved to have heard in person!) and partly directed at a then colleague (a friendly ghost! of sorts):


Best,
Michael

Joe,

I have read the CDF document. I don't think it changes anything, but simply reiterates certain key points -- primarily for the "benefit" of Latin Rite bishops and theologians, who seem to browse beyond the confines of the sheepfold at times. As a "Petrine exercise" of the unity of the Church, view it as the Shepherd shepherding the flock.

In fact, if the Church of Christ, the Universal Church, did not subsist somewhere, how could it be said that the Church of Christ is at all, in the Sacramental sense of the mystery of the Church?

The ecumenical "question" remains: "By what theological right, do we continue to justify not being in full communion with one another?"

Where truly justified reasons exist, our Churches have a duty to respond to that; where we can cooperate on the practical plane (praxeological ecumenism) such as on social remedies to ills such as abortion, we should do so in a heartbeat; and meanwhile we should strive to be the best followers of Christ that we know how to be.

Holiness and unity are both gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Best,
Michael

Michael, from an Orthodox point of view, the theological justification for not being in full communion is simply that we believe that Rome teaches false doctrines, particularly, the doctrines regarding the nature of the papacy. Some Orthodox would add to the list of false doctrines, including the filioque addition to the Creed, purgatory, etc. Other Orthodox theologians are comfortable regarding these as permissible theological opinions of the West, just as long as they are not regarding as Dogma. But virtually all Orthodox agree that there is no unity of faith between Rome and Orthodoxy and that at the very least, the dogmas regarding the authority and infallibility of the Pope are erroneous.

Joe

Joe,

With respect, I think your statement begs the question. As I view it, my understanding may be not quite as accurate and true, as that of Joseph Ratzinger (or Walter Kaspar, or supply any person) so my understanding needs to improve. I do not feel empowered to set conditions or hurdles that the Holy Spirit must meet or jump over. Why the Holy Spirit? Because, He is the Spirit of Christ, and the Cause of Unity. Unity is a vocation, a beckoning of His.

Any "condition" I could place is purely human (regardless of how important it might seem to me), and if the Church of Christ is anything, it is not a purely human reality (or even purely temporal and visible). In my heart of hearts, I am beginning to discern (with an assist from Cardinal Ratzinger and others) that ecclesial reconciliation between "me" and "you" cannot occur by simply looking backwards: the Holy Spirit is moving forwards, He has "been there, done that", and He is moving us on. It is for "me" to try to catch up.

Best,
Michael

Michael,

What concrete change do you think is necessary for reunion? In other words, if we are to look forward, what specific proposal regarding papal primacy would be acceptable to all parties involved?

Joe

Joe,



This may sound like a "cop-out", but in truth I don't have a "concrete proposal". I think when enough Catholics are striving to be faithful to the Lord within their tradition, and when enough Orthodox are striving to be faithful to the Lord within their tradition, one day (perhaps the Second Coming of Christ, perhaps sooner, I don't foresee any possibility of a "program") they/(we?) will look up and realize what needs to be done. That "day" will be a gift of the Holy Spirit.

They will all be firmly convinced that it is the will of God, and not to do so would be to offend Him. It will be an act of fidelity, not apostasy, on the part of all. It will be communion, so we will communicate fully.

Best,
Michael

P.S. Regarding the Primacy, the same exchange of letters has some beautiful formulations of how that might be understood in a mutually acceptable way. I cannot reproduce the entire text, but perhaps the idea.

The Primacy of agape (of which St. Ignatius of Antioch speaks, words repeated by Athenagoras in 1965 to Paul VI) can be understood to express what Vatican I used legalistic vocabulary to express. The point of the legalistic vocabulary of Vatican I regarding primacy, underscores the "unpredictability in advance by human beings" of how the Petrine Ministry might need to be exercised, while the restrictive clauses in the definition are intended to clarify that the Pope must exercise a "Primacy of obedience" in order to exercise appropriately the "Primacy of agape". [In other words, the emphasis of the legalistic language should not be on how those words would be interpreted in a secular society, public or private, but rather on the fact that one of the main purposes of the Petrine ministry is to preserve the unity of the Church, and human beings cannot know in advance what ways that ministry might be needed in the future -- any more than we can know what threats to the unity of the Church will arise in the future.]

On the other hand, "agape" in the Church ought not either be understood as some kind of "toothless good feeling", since in the Church it expresses mission, commitment, dedication, obedience, humility and service.

Alexandr:

Not a bad thought. The problem is that, like our dearth of prisons, I wonder if there were enough monasteries to hold all the bishops to be sent to them.

The second thing I would wonder is if some Latin monasteries might not be the worst places for bishops sent to them. Some have the most liberal thought propelling them and it might just be that bishops sent to them would end worse for the experience.

And, at the risk of seeming uncharitable, if they were sent to Eastern monasteries, would they not likely be such a disturbance to the life lived there that they'd be better off defrocked and let go?

In Christ,

BOB

Shrewd observations, Bob!

Let us pray that they will be converted.

Alexandr has yet to tell us what the conditions these less than "catholic" bishops would be kept under! Although I have my own ideas, I will leave to Alexandr to explain since it is his proposal and his dream. Elizabeth Maria, please clarify what you mean by converted!

Michael,

I think both you (and then Cardinal Ratzinger) have hit the nail on the proverbial head here. The issue in many ways is this tendency towards reducing the primacy to the acquisition of responsibility/power for the functioning of the universal Church. Roman centralism, while it has some benefits organizationally, is also quite problematic and disfigures the authentic exercise of the primacy.

The naming and appointment of bishops is one such example of this, as is the virtual reduction of the notion of the magisterium to a department in the Vatican. (Note that this is contrary to the teachings of Lumen Gentium at the Second Vatican Council.) The problem continues to be the balancing act the Pope must do as Patriarch of the Latin Church (aka "the West") where so many challenges exist on so many levels. Some centralization is necessary (and good) until the the "Benedictine Reforms" (my name) are fully implemented.

Pope Benedict has also said that a key issue in the exercise of the Petrine ministry has been the fusion and confusion of the tripartite ministry of the Pope in his functioning as Bishop of his local diocese, Patriarch of the Latin Church and Successor of Saint Peter. All three ministries inhere in his office, so it is easy to see how they can be confused.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Gordo,

Let's give credit where it is due -- in this case to Cardinal Ratzinger, I'm just a "reporter".

One of the ironies of the post VCII period in the Latin Rite has been that the bishops seem to have difficulty balancing two aspects of their ministry: a) representing Christ in the diocese, and b) being in communion with the Pope, and a "sign" of communion to all in the diocese. I think the "cheerleaders" have been encouraging them to look defiant, but that doesn't sit well with the laity, whence all the criticism of bishops (not talking now about the sex abuse scandal).

I think they are beginning to see that the "cheerleaders" have been wrong all along, and are beginning to act (individually) in a more "responsible" way, which is part of what Cardinal Ratzinger, and now Pope Benedict, has been asking them to be (because that's what Vatican II called for). The laity do notice!

We will probably begin to see more of an Eastern synodal approach take shape (over the next 100 years or so!), which will take much of the "patriarch of the West" stuff off the Pope's shoulders (I don't think he wants it). The Bishops Conferences are not Synods, but Synods might grow out of a better understanding of why not.

Futuristicissimo: "The Vatican" has become the permanent home for the representatives of the various Synods of Bishops around the world, of all Rites, who are named "Cardinal" for their term of office, and who, along with Patriarchs from around the solar system are responsible for electing a new Pope when necessary, and who assist the Pope in the universal care for all the Churches. Normally, bishops are chosen by their Synods, with input from many sources, including the laity. In the Latin Rite, after decades of controversy, what started out as an approved English liturgy for a small number of converts from Anglicanism was adopted worldwide as the most elegant form of the Divine Liturgy of the Roman Rite in English. It has been hundreds of years since a European has served as the Bishop of Rome. The Patriarch of Mars constantly complains that he feels too isolated, and out of the loop. etc., etc., etc.

Best,
Michael