Interesting discussion.

Orthodox/Catholic

Link is broken.

Here is the correct link: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/east-west-catholic-dialogue-in-d.c/

Given the limits of space, it is a reasonably accurate description of the conference, but it is pretty clear that Hays is not particularly familiar with the Eastern Churches or with the ongoing Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical dialogue.

Notice the comment about our own Adam DeVille

"One of the novel suggestions put forth at the conference came from Adam DeVille, a Greek Catholic, editor of Logos magazine and author of Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint and the Prospects of East-West Unity. DeVille called for the Catholic Church to change her structure, dividing into six continental patriarchies under a “papal presidency.” DeVille, a professor in the philosophy and theology department at the University of St. Francis in Fort Wayne, Ind., said that this would show that the Catholic Church is willing to develop a more dispersed form of authority and could set the stage for reunion."

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/east-west-catholic-dialogue-in-d.c/#ixzz1RMdYMI7o

At least we know where the original thinking is coming from.

I think if Adam had attended earlier Orientale Lumen conferences he would have heard similar proposals from Archbishop Vsevolod of Scopelos, not to mention me. I have written about the idea on this forum several times in the past, if someone knows how to search the archives.

Frankly, I am against the idea of dividing the Latin Church into continental "patriarchates." This is unhistorical and unnecessary. Instead, I would like to restore the authority of the already existing ecclesiastical province, consisting of a metropolitan archbishop and several suffragan bishops. I don't want to import Eastern Christian structures, but to reinvigorate genuinely Western Christian structures.

Accordingly, a diocesan bishop would be elected by the presbyterate of the diocese and ordained by the metropolitan archbishop and the other bishops of the province. The metropolitan archbishop would have to receive the pallium from the Pope before he could ordain bishops, as attested by the 12th-century Provincial Statute of the Church of Niðaróss.

Ecclesiastical provinces exist today in the Latin Church (ranging from New York to San Francisco to Oklahoma City) and only need to be reinvigorated. Creating patriarchates from scratch, on the other hand, seems to me a break with established tradition.

Really? Because the current organization (or lack thereof) of the Western Church is purely an accident of history--two accidents, in fact. The first accident was the collapse of the Western Empire, which led to the impoverishment of the Church in Gaul and Africa, both of which saw themselves as major, autonomous regional Churches, and not as franchises of the Church of Rome. Through the fifth and sixth centuries, these Churches stood up for their traditional rights against the encroachment of the Papacy. The Church of Africa, alas, was destroyed by the Muslim conquest just a short while after recovering from its suppression under the Arian Vandals, while the Church of Gaul effectively lost its independence when Charlemagne decided to toss in his lot with the centralizing authority of Rome (so much easier to dominate just one bishop than one hundred).

The second accident of history was the discovery of the New World, and the subsequent division of those territories between Spain and Portugal under the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494). This opened up not just the Americas, but both Asia and Oceania to Latin missionaries, who blithely ignored the presence of indigenous Eastern Churches in places like India and China. Even given the normal course of development, the Church in the Americas would have developed into a body independent of Rome, but for the Reformation and the change of Catholic ecclesiology resulting from the Council of Trent.

The idea of recreating "metropolitan provinces" will not address the fundamental problem of Rome's insatiable desire to micromanage everything. Only the erection of patriarchates consisting of multiple metropolitanates, each with metropolitan and patriarchal synods, would have the necessary mass to withstand attempts by Rome to reduce them to mere branch offices.

Vatican II called for the creation of episcopal conferences that were supposed to be largely self-governing; i.e., de facto synods. The USCCB, for instance, would have morphed into something like the Synod of the United States. However, episcopal conferences were never allowed the authority needed to set policy or to govern their local Churches, being mere advisory bodies. This is not only a violation of the intent of the Second Vatican Council, it is also a violation of the Catholic Church's long-standing principle of subsidiarity; i.e., that local issues are best resolved locally, by the people most immediately involved. But since Vatican II, we have actually seen an increase in the breadth of the Vatican's intervention in the affairs of local Churches, to the point where Latin bishops are virtual eunuchs incapable of making any independent decision of import. Small wonder, then, that the episcopate is infantilized: treat adults like children, and they will act like children. To reverse the trend, the Vatican will simply have to let go, and give the bishops both authority and responsibility--and be willing to say, "You made your bed, now lay in it".

I agree strongly about subsidiarity and infantilizing adults; not only concerning the Church, but as a wider comment on our culture.

But this:

Why are you sure these are accidents?

Careful where you are going, there, Dr. Pangloss.