www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern Catholics who dismiss the Papacy

There are, of course, radically different perceptions and realities between the 'old countries' and 'the new world'.

When the Melkites in their own native nations do something, it's hard for outsiders to intervene -- but they'll try anyway. When the Byzantines are a minority in a Western nation, they're an easier target.

The reality is that Byzantine Catholics are responsible to their own bishops and synods. The Latin Church's (legitimate) public connectivity to the Pope served well as a buffer to Protestantism. (For the Irish especially, but also for the Germans.) This public 'devotion' to the Pope spilled over to Byzantine Catholics and thereby set the stage for an unusual and direct linkage to Papal hegemony that stands in contrast to the Eastern perspective of devotion to one's bishop/archbishop that is characteristic of Orthodoxy.

It is clear that the current Holy Father sees this as a serious question for the understanding of how the Papacy is to be understood. It is in this context, it seems to me, that we are obligated to help redefine the role of the Papacy in the universal church and in the non-Latin churches.

The real danger lies in the Roman bureaucracy. Every person wants to preserve his/her job and income. The Roman dicastries don't want to go the way of the dot-coms. So, the primary job of the bureaucracy is to preserve the role (and authority) of the bureaucracy. Thus, 'official' documents are proposed to respond to "Questions from the East" (and West) that will address the question, but at the same time will preserve the need for the bureaucracies to continue to exist.

Blessings!

Well, I have so say that mine personal experiences and Anthony's are radically different. Maybe I am factoring in people from the early decades of my life who no longer are on this earth, GCU brothers, and extended family members who, with a Byzantine Catholic identity that is unremarkable to them as the air around us, just don't spend much time thinking about these things, as opposed to hyper-charged Byzano-battlers. (I'm trying to be cute here).

I do know that 97% of Byzantine Catholics are not in jurisdictions that have the limitation on married priests Anthony referes to.

Anthony may well be right about the former Catholics in the Orthodox priesthood. They have a number of former Latisn as well (maybe a greater number). More to the point, the the Protestant minsitry is full of former Catholics. Union Thelogical Semianry graduates more former Catholics than born Presbyterians for the ministry.

In the Byzantine Pittsburgh Metropolia, disaffilations of laity are almost entirely to Protestantism. My own pastor has said that most of our people who leave to Protestantism are folks wer have truly failed to provide for their spiritual needs and is a problem the Church is not facing, while the few who leave for Orthodoxy tend to be individuals excessively attached to the externals of Church life.

Again, if Anthony's friend left the Byzantine Church because of theori feeling of a calling to the vocations of priesthood and marriage, I don't know what the proper response is in that they clealry have latin concepts of vocations -- something not properly part of our tradition. I would have to guess they have some other issues.

But I just find it impossible to understand the immense suffering our people have endured for our communion with Rome if a measureable number of us think communion with Rome is all that important. We must have a S/M thing going.

K.

Kurt,

I am not only referring to Ruthenians, but also Melkites and other Eastern Catholic groups. And once again, I am not saying that this is the norm. The vast majority of Eastern Catholics love the papacy and would rather die than be out of communion with Rome. But I also believe that there is a measurable number of Eastern Catholics who are dissatisfied with the Papal ministry and do not convert to Orthodoxy primarily because their families are Catholic. If your experience doesn't confim this, that's fine.

Besides, my post was directed primarily at the situation encountered by David in his "puzzled" thread. He met a Melkite who doesn't believe that there is anything special about the Papacy. I have proposed a theory as to why this may be so. I could be wrong, because it is just a theory. But I do think that the struggles over the celibacy question has probably had some sort of effect on our opinions about Rome.

God bless,
Anthony

To be scriptural about this: "That they all may be one as You, Father, in Me, and I in You."

Eastern Catholics see a very real necessity to be in communion with the See of Peter and with the person of the Holy Father. However, there are other elements that come along with this, some of which correspond to the 'union documents' and others of which are pure politics.

Eastern Catholics are indeed Orthodox Christians by theology, liturgy and (hopefully) by administrative practices. However, when Roman theology, liturgy and administrative practices are presented as the 'norm', we have not only the right, but also the obligation to say: "Hold on, there!"

Dismissive of the papacy as the person of the Holy Father? No way!!! Dismissive of the extraneous elements: maybe. Let us consult with our bishops first.

I'm not sure that I understand the 'question'.

Blessings!

Dr. John,
With all due respect to you and the Eastern Catholics, yours is a delusion to find it a necessity to be in communion with the See of Rome. It is the See of Rome that needs to be in communion. As much as you resemble Orthodoxy your still out of communion with the Orthodox Church. Your obligation of telling Rome to "Hold on there" is part of your delusions. Your churches will continue to be placed on hold. If you believe unity with the Orthodox Church will be imminent that is a greater delusion. I can only suggest that you people work on getting Rome to conform to the Unity of the Faith to be in true communion. One does get tired of the unwarranted justifications for being in communion with Rome when Rome is not a true communion. This is my 2 cents for the day. Anyone care to add to the pot?

Dr John wrote:

Eastern Catholics see a very real necessity to be in communion with the See of Peter and with the person of the Holy Father.

This is an open question to all the Eastern Catholics, or, more precisely, those who see themselves as "Orthodox in communion..."

What is the necessity for you being in communion with Rome? How does being in communion with Rome affect your spiritual life or your theosis? I understand that this "necessity" exists for some people, but I don't really know what that necesssity is.

Love, Loukas

To Anthony, I find it difficult to accept that the true reason fo the dissatisfaction of a Melkite Catholic is over the celibacy issue, as the Melkites do not practice any such restrictions. I don't know Anthony's friend, but I have become aware of situations where married men were declined candidacy to the priesthood for reasons unrelated to their maritial status and become somewhat embittered.

It has been my experince, withour overly generalizing, that that celibacy issue can be two sides of the Latin coin. Conservative latins who are uncomfortable with any deviation from their practice, and graeophile Latins who evelvate what is most distinct from their tradition to (falsely) what is most important to ours.

I would also modestly disagree with Dr. John that we have any neccisity to follow Orthodox administriative practices, we are administratively independent of the Orthodox Church and should do what is best pastorally for our people.

As to Loukas, Oh, we have great neccesity for our communion, the subject of another disucssion.

K.

Just my $0.02 on the substance of this one.

I think that anyone who has discontentment is just that .. discontent. In my opinion, the celibacy issue is not the disease, but the symptom. To the extent that an Eastern Catholic feels that the Eastern Catholics in the USA are being "pushed around" by Rome relating to clerical celibacy, and therefore feels some resentment toward Rome for this (rightly or wrongly ... as Kurt has correctly noted, the Melkites don't really practice priestly celibacy here), IMO this is a symptom of a deeper dissatisfaction with the way that the primacy works in the Catholic communion at this time.

In my opinion, if that is all there is -- a dissatisfaction with the administrative modalities of the exercise of the primacy -- one should stay where one is and either (1) realize that this is a minor matter in the grand scheme of things in the Catholic Church or (2) work together with those persons of all the particular churches of the Catholic communion who are trying to articulate a different vision for how the primacy works. Moving to Orthodoxy because some Eastern Catholic jurisdictions in the USA don't ordain married men seems inappropriate to me -- both because it exaggerates the importance of this issue, on the one hand, and on the other makes light of the differences between Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism that result in no general intercommunion between us.

Again, if someone thinks that the celibacy practiced by some Eastern Catholic jurisdictions in the USA is inappropriate -- but in all other ways agrees with present "Catholic" teaching, then one should stay Catholic, because becoming Orthodox implies a rejection of those aspects of Catholic teaching that are not subscribed to by Orthodoxy. Similarly, if one believes that Vatican I/II have it dogmatically right on the Papacy, but simply thinks the exercise of that office should be adjusted, one should not become Orthodox, IMO.

Brendan

Dear Friends,

It would seem that, from a secular, sociological point of view, there could be different levels of intensity attached to communion with Rome by Eastern and Latin Catholics.

For example, I attended a Basilian Eastern Catholic parish as a teenager where the Pope figured much more prominently than at my Roman Catholic high school!

I know Eastern Catholics who are in communion with the Pope, but who don't really think about him or his significance to any great degree.

If one is not in communion with the Pope, one need not be "Orthodox" right away.

To be "Orthodox" one must be an integral member of an Orthodox Church, no matter how close or even identical in faith one is to Orthodoxy.

As for the Pope's significance etc., the Church, East and West, for the first 1,000 years saw the Petrine Ministry as exercised by Rome to be significant, if Fr. John Meyendorff and others are to be believed .

Orthodoxy today says that the doctrinal differences between it and the West were of such weight that they justified the break between the Churches.

The point is that Orthodoxy was once in communion with Rome, a Rome that expressed the CHurch's unity etc. as Meyendorff said.

Are the differences sufficient enough to justify that break, however we conceive it to be?

While I am open to Byzantine theology, I don't believe they are.

The Petrine Ministry can change and I believe it will.

To discard it entirely is not, I believe, God's Will for the Church.

Alex

As for the Pope's significance etc., the Church, East and West, for the first 1,000 years saw the Petrine Ministry as exercised by Rome to be significant, if Fr. John Meyendorff and others are to be believed.

If the Orthodox Church as a whole is to be believed, the Petrine ministry as a whole is equally significant. Gregory the Great spoke of more than one Petrine see.

If Alex's post starts with the assumption that Rome is the locus of the Church and that Orthodoxy has "left Rome," he has a good point. But I don't think Orthodoxy starts there. So it's hard just to point to unity with Rome as the ideal when unity with everyone else is just as much a part of the first millenium.

Loukas

Dear Loukas,

Actually, I would never say that Orthodoxy has "left Rome!"

I believe that the Split of 1054 was a mutual estrangement that has hurt both East and West.

If you will recall, I described the Papacy as the Petrine Ministry.

Is a Church that is not in communion with Rome less of a Church? I don't believe so and neither do you!

The Petrine Ministry is something that acts for the benefit of all the Churches within the Body of Christ.

It can readily be shown that, as St Gregory wrote, St Peter consecrated bishops for not only Rome, but Antioch and, through his assistant St Mark, Alexandria as well. He became Chief of the Apostles in Israel and Jerusalem. Constantinople stands in the tradition of his brother, St Andrew, as do Kyiv and Moscow.

The point is that the Petrine Ministry HAS a role in a united Orthodox and Catholic Church of Christ.

The question is how that role can be redefined and adapted to best serve the entire Church.

For me, Rome is the first Patriarch for the entire Church. Constantinople is the first Patriarch for our common Byzantine Church heritage. Kyiv is the first for my particular local Church.

As an Eastern Catholic, I know my Orthodox friends see contradictions in what I have just said. My Roman CAtholic friends see the same contradictions.

But Christians don't only live in the NOW. We also live in the future and in what can be through faith, hope and love.

For me, being an Eastern Catholic is a challenge. I can be critical of both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, but I don't believe in walking away from either. Another contradiction for you, Loukas!

I can only offer my prayer to God for the unity of all of God's Churches according to His final Will that will come about when all will be united as He wishes, not as we wish.

I have no wish to oppose you, only to pray that God bring us together in the Body of Christ.

We can talk about which is the True Church until we are blue in the face.

God's truth will be known and God will glorify Himself on the earth.

That is what I pray for and that is what I await in eager anticipation.

Alex

Alex,

I appreciate the clarification. Maybe I misread your comments.

The Petrine Ministry can change and I believe it will. To discard it entirely is not, I believe, God's Will for the Church.

I understood you to mean that the Latins had maintained this ministry while the Orthodox had discarded it. But I doubt that premise would be acceptable to the OC as a foundation for further dialog.

Love, Loukas

My brother Loukas writes:

Dr John wrote:
Eastern Catholics see a very real necessity to be in communion with the See of Peter and with the person of the Holy Father.

This is an open question to all the Eastern Catholics, or, more precisely, those who see themselves as "Orthodox in communion..."

What is the necessity for you being in communion with Rome? How does being in communion with Rome affect your spiritual life or your theosis? I understand that this "necessity" exists for some people, but I don't really know what that necesssity is.

Love, Loukas"

(I apologize for being so late in responding to Loukas; I've been working in 10 states in the last two weeks.)

When I say: "necessity", I mean that the person of the Bishop of Rome stands as the focal point of the administration (I hate that word) of the Church as a community. Because the "Church" subsists in the person of a bishop and his presbyters along with the baptized people, I extend this image to the collegiality of the bishops under an 'overseer' bishop -- "epi-skopos" in Greek means an overseer. As a canonical bishop, in communion with other canonical bishops, constitutes one segment of the Church, so too does the Bishop of Rome assume a role of 'epi-skopos' (overseer) of the bishops. There is no doubt that the Church is present in the synod of bishops. They represent all the faithful, clerical and layfolk. Among these canonical bishops, there is one who serves (and that is literal: SERVES) the Church as the convener of the bishops and the overseer of the combined communities. That is the bishop of Rome. Thus, Catholics have the role of the Pope as the servant of the collective body of the bishops, and therefore, as the servant of the Church as a whole. The Pope's role traditionally has been as the 'elder brother' who calls the episcopal family together.

In the history of the Church, political images have been introduced that have distorted the image of the Bishop of Rome into something that is alien to the traditions of the Church. The confusion between the Pope as 'overseer' and 'elder brother' have been shunted aside and replaced with the perspective of an 17th century European 'divine right' monarch who 'rules' because God has appointed him to do so. The 19th century perspectives expressed in Vatican I have, unfortunately, reinforced this perspective. The Council was, in many ways, the dying gasps of an expiring European mindset that extolled monarchy to the detriment of anything else.

It flew in the face of democratic impetus of the times; it was totally alien to the Eastern Churches (of the Near East) though it was understandable to the Eastern (Slavic) Europeans and their 'divine right' Tsar, and it made a mockery of what had been the ongoing tradition of the Church, i.e., the Pope as shepherd, not commander of Papal Armies.

So, as John Paul II has asked, we are attempting to re-capture the traditional understanding of the role of the 'elder brother' bishop of Rome. We have to get rid of the craziness that has accrued to the Papacy over the centuries, we have to re-allow the Holy Father to be the 'elder brother' and 'general overseer' of his brother bishops, and we have to divest ourselves of the idea of the 'divine right monarch' that has captured our fantasy image of the Pope.

So, Eastern Catholics are present to help shake the cobwebs from the western church's understanding of both the Pope of Rome and the role of the Western Church in the universality of the Christian community. And hopefully, through our spirituality and perseverance, we will be able to assist the Church Universal in its ability to call all the baptized into the House of God without the arrogance that once characterized the Roman See's image of itself.

Blessings!

Dear Loukas,

Yes, but I don't believe the Orthodox Church has "discarded" the Petrine Ministry, only that another Patriarch, that of New Rome, is now exercising it within Orthodoxy.

The Petrine Ministry is exercised, I believe, by all the Patriarchs, since they are all from Peter and the Apostles.

Is the Pope the Successor of St Peter? Certainly. And so are the Orthodox Patriarchs. And so are we when we confess, with St Peter, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

Alex

Dr. John,
You still have not answered anyone's question. You have given a response that befits Roman Catholic and Protestant listeners. The craziness and the imagery you mentioned regarding the papacy is Rome's doing. The 'elder brother" imagery is really that of the prodigal son.
Why is it necessary to be in communion with a run away "prodigal elder" that ignores the family? There is no one that would not like to see unity in the family. We pray for the return to Orthodoxy. You think being in communion with Rome that you are going to help resolve matters central to Orthodoxy. You got another thing coming my friend.

ALex,
Most Catholics might not accept your statement and attribute the Petrine Ministry to Rome alone. That's the way it is and mostly likely will continue. I really do not have a problem with your statement but people in your communion might differ & disagree.