www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Are we an impediment to reunion?

There is nothing in either scripture or tradition that indicates that the Pope's primacy involves his appointing bishops to the College of Bishops. In fact it is a novel practice of recent times even within the Roman Church itself, but because he is the Patriarch of the West his appointing Latin bishops is less objectionable than his intrusion into the affairs of other self-governing Churches. Either the Eastern Catholic Churches are self-governing communities or they are not. Rome has to make up its mind what it wants in this area, especially if there is ever to be any real advancement in ecumenical relations with the Eastern Orthodox.

What is there in the scripture or tradition that supports the idea of overlapping canonical territory and dioceses? What is there in scripture or tradition that makes it clear how to handle the ecclesiological impacts of mass immigration to the New World? How do these sources affect the uncanonical situation of the Orthodox here? ISTM that a collobration of sister churches with, in effect, binding arbitration is a clever, and probably temporary, solution to to this novel problem, that shows every indication of working itself out - on an ecclesiastical time table.

And don't fool yourself: every indication is that relations with the Orthodox would be advanced, at least in the near term, by Rome exercising more control over the UGCC not less. What have you been reading?

I'm at a loss to understand how Roman supremacy has solved the problem of jurisdictional multiplicity. There are something like four Catholic bishops in the NY area. Two in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Cleveland. Perhaps some others around that I'm not thinking of.

Andrew

There is nothing in scripture or tradition about either thing. But to claim that the primacy of the Pope is the solution to a problem of jurisdictions is simply false. It can, and in fact it has, made matters worse. Unless you think the present schism between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches is ideal. Pushing the Pope's authority on those who reject the formulations of the First Vatican Council is not going to bring about the restoration of communion.

The way in which Papal primacy operates is going to have to be radically changed, and I also believe that the formulations of Vatican I will have to be reworked if communion is to be restored. The Ukrainian situation is only a minor blip on the map.

I am tempted simply to agree with this remark.
But there are two important points. First the whole vision of the problem has been changed in the Catholic Church, with the emergence of the ideas of "particular churches". Second, there are formal modes of interaction through, as exemplified in this present topic, the Congregation for Oriental Churches. The "problem" is solved not by insistence on an ecclesiastical structure that doesn't quite fit at the moment, but instead by providing an organizational structure that facilitates the interactions of the churches.

I will say that I am happy there there is some umbrella, that, ultimately, has some power to bind, to help adjudicate interaction between churches. In effect, this for example gives some input, albeit very, very modest - a kind of nihil obstat, check-off - to other Byzantines in Philadelphia on the selection of the UGCC
bishop, who, while not their bishop, is in fact in a position that could have great impact on BCs in Philadelphia. It likewise provides sturctue to mediate, e.g., conflicts that can arise.

What are you talking about? I note to begin with that you have yet to acknowledge the leap forward in the Ukraine. Just complaints. Further, I don't know exaclty what you mean by the "jurisdictional problem". Your pronouncements about what is false - lofted without the slightest attempt at substantiation is hampered, to say the least, by the lack of definition of the problem. Then the great non sequitur about the schism...

This is absurd. I have pushed nothing on any Orthodox. I have pointed out that the handling of ecclesiology in the diaspora by the Orthodox has been, in their view, unsatisfactory, and that some have considered this an example of where a role for primacy of some sort (never did I mention a VI model, so stop the straw man arguments) could be valuable. I have also stated that I, as a Catholic, also see the value. It is clear that this kind of oversight which structures the deference between churches who live in each others territory, is just unbearable to some. I can't help but wonder just how these folks missed the relevant lessons in family life and married life?

That really depends on your idea of how it operates now and what you believe to be the formulations of VI. Certainly triumphalist positions will have to be reworked. But I think that your harping on the situation in the diaspora which is complex, without acknowleging the progess both in the collaborative process in the diaspora, and the radical change in the Ukraine, indicates that you are being blind to the changes that are occuring.

djs, I would say for example with SCOBA there is a structure emerging that is facilitating the interaction of the various Orthodox jurisdictions in this country. There are people who are talking seriously about what a unified church structure would look like in the United States. Though I believe it is probably a long way off, I think it will happen at some point. The jurisdictional overlap is certainly not a good thing, but I think it will be worked out without someone interfering from above.

I don�t know if there is serious talk of a unified Eastern Catholic Church in this country, if Eastern Catholics themselves want it or if Rome would even ever allow it. Overlap on the Catholic side in this country may outlast the Orthodox jurisdictional situation.
--

What has been discussed in this thread to me is supremacy, not primacy. Primacy in the larger sense, i.e. across church boundaries, is something that should rarely be invoked or used. It is really about how councils are run and who one can appeal to or who can moderate in times of need. It is not about the everyday running of a church.

Churches in normal circumstances should govern themselves as they see fit. They should elect their own bishops and ordain priests as their own tradition dictates. A Patriarch should be able to completely oversee his own flock. There may be some Orthodox out there who think the Roman model of governance makes sense, but I have never run across them. Nearly all Orthodox look at the radical centralization of power centered around Rome since the time of Pius IX as a grave mistake and a further hindrance to any hope of the churches reconciling. Apotheoun said the formulations of Vatican I must be reworked if communion is to be restored. Frankly I think they must essentially be dropped altogether.

Andrew

Actually, the union of Brest (1596) itself can be seen as a part of the problem. The imperialistic attempts of the Roman Church to bring other groups into communion with it are a sad part of Christian history. I think that Rome should remain out of the situation, and let the Ukrainian Churches govern themselves, and determine their own futures.

Andrew,
What is the authority of SCOBA? Can it, in effect, do binding arbitration? Merging into one juridiction is one kind of solution.

Andrew the rest of what you write is not repsonsive to what I am posting. It overlooks that problem with "churches" in the diaspora and the problems inherent in their governing themselves "as they see fit". Their governance has an substantive impact on the sister churches with whom they are in close contact.

No Orthodox that I know of has proposed the "Roman model", whatever that means, and neither have I. But some understand the utility of Primacy and its history. And surprisingly very few of those who see Supremacy in the "Roman model", understand that Supremacy is a grave problem of the Orthodox model of governace, throughout history. Check out this old thread .

Apotheoun, resolute in refusing to acknowledge contemporary progress, goes further back into the past. Now rewind and watch.

Apotheoun, Your comment on Roman imperialism sent me searching for a pdf of Fr. Taft's lecture: Anamnesis, Not Amnesia: The "Healing Memories' and the Problem of "Uniatism' What is the basis of your impression?

An Orthodox friend of mine sent me a link to the article some time ago, and here's what I said to him after reading it:

These two comments are contradictory. The second adheres to the Roman Imperialsism idea, but the first claims agreement with Taft, who sees the situation very differently. The question remains: what informs your view of the history of the Reunion?

DJS,

I did not say in my response that I agree with all of Taft's views on this topic. Clearly, I do not agree with him on everything, because I do think that the Roman Church used the various political changes in Eastern Europe throughout the period in question in order to gain control over areas that formerly had been Orthodox. I also believe that Rome -- until quite recently -- has not always lived up to its promises, i.e., the promises that it made to the Eastern Catholic Churches themselves. That is not to say that it always failed, because at times it did defend the Eastern Catholics against their Latin neighbors attempts to assimilate them. Nevertheless, the Roman Church (and not merely the Holy See) has in the past advocated and even pushed for the Latinization of the Eastern Churches, sometimes this has been done actively by Rome, and sometimes it has occurred through omission of action (i.e., a failure to defend the rights of the Eastern Catholic Churches against Latin Catholic pressure). There have also been times in which the Holy See has courageously defended the Eastern Catholic Churches -- even when it has done so in a triumphalistic manner -- and the Papal encyclical Allate Sunt is an example of a defense of the East by Rome. Now in reading that encyclical an Easterner may be offended by the constant references to the idea that Rome "allows" the Eastern rites to exist, or that Rome has approved of the Eastern liturgies (as if Rome's approval of them is necessary), but the document overall tries to protect the Byzantine Churches from destruction by Roman missionaries. Sadly Allate Sunt does promote the idea that the Roman Rite is superior to all other rites, for as the document itself says:
Now I am personally quite happily that that bias has been corrected since the end of the Second Vatican Council, but I think it is important that Roman Catholics feel sorrow over the fact that their sui juris Church promoted bigoted positions in the past, and they should not try to minimize the harm done by those bigoted ideas and the actions that resulted from them. Roman Catholics should experience the kind of conversion of heart that Pope John Paul II called for in connection with their views on the Eastern Churches. Clearly they should also rejoice in the more recent affirmations by the Holy See about the equality of the various liturgical rites and sui juris Churches. That being said, it is important to avoid anything that makes it appear as if the Roman Church was blameless in all of the acts which harmed the Eastern Churches, both those that eventually came into communion with the Pope, and those that remained Orthodox.

That being said, I stand by my comments about the Roman Church's promotion -- in the past -- of a type of ecclesiastical imperialism, because it did attempt to bring Eastern Orthodox Churches into communion with the Pope by dividing them, by tearing them apart, and no one should try to hide this fact. Pretending that the Roman Church is blameless in all of this will not help the cause of Ecumenism. Now, in bring up this past "imperialistic" tendency on the part of Rome, I was simply trying to point out how the Roman Church was not opposed to taking advantage of the political turmoil in the various Eastern European countries in order to gain a foothold for itself there, and so I find it odd that some people refuse to admit that the Roman Church was serving its own interests when it made agreements that rent asunder the Orthodox Churches of the East. Even the Balamand Agreement is critical of this practice, as it says:
The thing that should be emphasized is that the Roman Church was, more often than not, the instigator of these attempts at proselytism, and the Orthodox Churches were normally responding to the aggression of Roman missionaries. Certainly this is something that all Catholics can, and should, lament. Sadly, the Eastern Catholic Churches were stuck in the middle of all of this, and were pressured by both Latin Catholics (who often mistrusted Byzantine Catholics because they appeared to be too Eastern) and by Eastern Orthodox (who saw them as traitors).

On a more positive note, I do think that the Roman Church has begun to realize that it must change its ways if there is ever to be a restoration of communion with the separated Eastern Churches. I am hopeful that at some point in the future the Pope will stop appointing bishops in the Eastern Catholic Churches and that he will respect the sui juris status of those Churches, because ecumenism will only move forward when the actions of the Roman Church coincide with what she says in connection with the self-governing status of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Yes, I understand that you disagree with Taft and his references on the Union of Brest. So what are your sources upon which you base your opinion?