|
2 members (melkman2, 1 invisible),
190
guests, and
22
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,295
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21 |
Dear Friends,
Viktor Pospishil in his book on the Decree on the Eastern Churches says that Eastern Catholic Patriarchs are more free than Orthodox Patriarchs, even though the former are dependent on the Pope.
He says that EC Patriarchs wield more actual jurisdiction and power.
He also says that the Russian and other Patriarchates, while they don't have a pope above them, have the civil power as their superiors and in their constitutional laws one can find quite a number of points which show the subjection of the patriarch to the civil government or the patriarchal synod.
Comments?
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 943
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 943 |
Hello,
How interesting! Free? How so? I'm just curious & plain dumb.
SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716 |
But still, the Pope and the Curia could call an Eastern Catholic Patriarch to Rome if they were displeased with him and ask for his resignation. That would a real test in the belief that they are Heads of "Particular Churches" equal with the Church of Rome.
Even if caesaropapism existed, there is no secular ruler such as the Byzantine Emperor existing tday that could exercise similar authority over an Orthodox Patriarch.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103 |
Originally posted by Brian:
But still, the Pope and the Curia could call an Eastern Catholic Patriarch to Rome if they were displeased with him and ask for his resignation. That would a real test in the belief that they are Heads of "Particular Churches" equal with the Church of Rome.
Even if caesaropapism existed, there is no secular ruler such as the Byzantine Emperor existing tday that could exercise similar authority over an Orthodox Patriarch. Alex and Brian, So the real question is not whether ceasaro-papism still exists but whether papal-ceasaroism still exists. Is this correct?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21 |
Dear Brian, Does not the Ecumenical Patriarch have authority to excommunicate a brother Patriarch for breaking canons etc.? Has he not done this most recently with the Patriarch of Jerusalem? As for caesaropapism, while we don't have Emperors or Tsars - at least they haven't made a comeback just yet  - does not the Russian State have extensive and informal control over the Moscow Patriarchate, both under the Soviets and even now? Do not the two continue to work in tandem? And even if one could show otherwise, are not the Orthodox Patriarchates often under the "yoke" of nationalism of their peoples, if not statism? Can you give one instance of where an Eastern Catholic Patriarch was ever asked to resign by Rome? In fact, according to Pospishil, patriarchal synods of the Eastern Catholic Churches appoint their own patriarchs and simply inform Rome as to their choice - the pope simply ratifies what is already a fact. Patriarchs must work with their synods, of course. But only the Eastern Catholic patriarchal synod may depose a patriarch. Over to you . . . Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,240
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,240 |
The Orthodox Patriarchs are simply presidents of their autocephalous synods/councils. As such, they may be deposed, only for a serious cause, by the voting members of the synod. Functionally there are Patriarchs, Archbishops and Metropolitans serving equally as presidents of their respective autocephalous synods. Any of them could be deposed, although usually, they just go early into retirement.
In Christ
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133 |
Hi:
The Greek Orthodox have to custom to ask the Head of the State of Israel for ratification of election of the Patriarch of Jerusalem.
As far as I know, us Catholics don't do that for any civilian Head of State.
The sad situation of the Orthodox Chuch in Ukraine clearly shows that the Orthodox Patriarchs, although in theoretical full-communion, sometimes act as competition to one another and those tense relationships often impose practical limitations to their pastoral efforts.
I am not aware of these situations among the Catholic Churches. Eastern Catholic Patriarchs are all subject to the authority of the Pope of Rome, but I still need to see an instance in which that subjection has worked against their Patriarchal authority.
Shalom,
Memo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716 |
When the Melkite Holy Synod tried to establish a "double communion" with the Antiochian Orthodox, they were prevented from pursuing this by the Curia especially Cardinal Ratsinger who rebuked the Synod. While some might quibble that this was an unrealistic attempt at union by the Melkite Holy Synod, it was an unwarranted interference by the Roman Curia into the affairs of a "Particular Church"
Certainly, before the growth of Ultramontanism in the Latin-rite Catholic Church in the 19th Century, secular rulers did have quite large powers over the Church in their realms (I.E. Imperial Austria and France during the Ancien Regime)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21 |
Dear Brian, I'll have to agree with you on the Melkite/Orthodox situation. That certainly is an incident of intrusion by the Vatican! But so is the excommunication of the Patriarch of Jerusalem by the EP for violating the canons. In matters of faith, the "First among Equals" of either Elder Rome or New Rome will take charge and tell us "how things are to be done downtown." And nomatter how much I value the Kyivan Patriarchate, I reverence the Patriarchs of both Elder Rome and New Rome above him. And I commemorate all three daily. So I still need more convincing, like Memo does  Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716 |
But Alex, Your original question dealt with the subjection of Orthodox by secular authorities, so your example of the EP and Jerusalem does not really enter into this. The Pope is still First in Honor and in Jurisdiction over all in the Catholic Church. This is something that the Orthodox simply don't have in their "Communion of Churches" makeup. It is a very basic difference. The EP , as you know, is in no way a Pope over the Orthodox Communion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,042
novice O.Carm. Member
|
|
novice O.Carm. Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,042 |
Ah, how things change when we look back upon them. Reminds me of this quote from Napoleon, "History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." Not only did the Congregation for the Eastern Churches turn down the Zoghby Initiative, but so did the Holy Synod of the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate. Here is what they had to say In October, 1996 the Holy Synod of the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate issued a statement which included these concerns on the Melkite proposal:
"In this regard, our Church questions the unity of faith which the Melkite Catholics think has become possible. Our Church believes that the discussion of this unity with Rome is still in its primitive stage. The first step toward unity on the doctrinal level, is not to consider as ecumenical, the Western local councils which the Church of Rome, convened, separately, including the First Vatican Council.
"And second the Melkite Catholics should not be obligated to accept such councils. Regarding inter-communion now, our Synod believes that inter-communion cannot be separated from the unity of faith. Moreover, inter-communion is the last step in the quest for unity and not the first."
In a letter to the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America, Metropolitan Philip also said:
"Please be advised that, while we pray for unity among all Christians, we cannot and will not enter into communion with non-Orthodox until we first achieve the unity of faith. As long as this unity of faith is not realized, there cannot be intercommunion. We ask you to adhere to the instructions which you receive from our office and hierarchs." So, contrary to popular belief, it wasn't just Rome that said no. I also agree 100% with this from the text from the Congregation for the Eastern Churches. As to the Greek-Melkite Catholics declaring their complete adhesion to the teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the Orthodox Churches today are not in full communion with the Church of Rome, and that this adhesion is therefore not possible as long as there is not a full correspondence in the profession and exercise of the faith by the two parties. Besides, a correct formulation of the faith necessitates a reference not only to a particular Church, but to the whole Church of Christ, which knows no frontiers, neither in space nor in time. This is exactly why I can not, in good faith, call myself an Orthodox Catholic.... I am a Byzantine Catholic! David, the Byzantine Catholic!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21 |
Dear David,
You are "Orthodox Catholic" because that is how our ancestors called themselves beginning with the First Ecumenical Council.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,240
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,240 |
When a Patriarch or other leader declares a break in communion with one of his brothers, he always risks that his other brethren will not follow. And if they stay in communion with his intended excommunicant, then he is the one who ends up, in theory, out of communion!
Usually, these declarations are more posturing than anything else, just like the initial excommunications between East and West.
In Christ
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21 |
But Brian . . . My original question really dealth with "who is more free." And I have yet to see a successful counter to the argument that the Orthodox Patriarchates are MORE encumbered than their Eastern Catholic counterparts with secular and nationalistic caps to their exercise of power. And I said that when the Pope and Rome get involved, it is synonymous with the involvement of the EP who not only chides, but also excommunicates. So I'm still wondering if the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs have more freedom from secular et al. caps to their exercise of ecclesial will. I think they do . . . ROCOR is an example of a persecuted minority Church that refused to submit to secular authority, as are the Old Believers. Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698 |
Not only did the Congregation for the Eastern Churches turn down the Zoghby Initiative, but so did the Holy Synod of the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate.
I think the point in all this is not that "Rome's not the only one who said no" but that the Melkite Catholic Church, being a patriarchal Church, has or should have the right to propose such initiatives with the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, and if one or both parties end up rejecting it, that's fine, because both parties are mature enough to make their own decisions. Rome stepping in makes it look like the Melkites are viewed by Rome, in spite of their patriarchal status, as not mature enough to always make their own decisions.
Certainly, before the growth of Ultramontanism in the Latin-rite Catholic Church in the 19th Century, secular rulers did have quite large powers over the Church in their realms (I.E. Imperial Austria and France during the Ancien Regime)
And, if I'm not mistaken, I remember reading in The Church Visible by James Charles Noonan that up till quite recently, certain European monarchs had the right to "veto" the results of a conclave, and thus to veto the election of a certain prelate to the office of Pope, if they didn't approve for some reason.
|
|
|
|
|
