www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Patriarchs

Phil,

I can understand your point, but alas, intercommunion would affect more than just the Melkites I think.

How could if be right for one to be able to recieve communion with the Melkite Church but then be refused in all other Catholic Churches?

This is one place where, at the moment, I do not see anything wrong with Rome providing a ruleing.

Also, the Melkites must think it important for Rome to know of this, after all they did send it to them also. They could have just sent it to the Antiochians.

I do think Rome has a good point, at this point in time, we do not share the same faith. I will stand by that statment. Becuase if we did share the same faith there would be no issue with this as we would all be in communion already.

Also, there is the Canon I posted to another topic, I think it works here too.

Can. 333 �1 By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings. This reinforces and defends the proper, ordinary and immediate power which the Bishops have in the particular Churches entrusted to their care.

�2 The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling his office as supreme Pastor of the Church, is always joined in full communion with the other Bishops, and indeed with the whole Church. He has the right, however, to determine, according to the needs of the Church, whether this office is to be exercised in a personal or in a collegial manner.

�3 There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgement or a decree of the Roman Pontiff.

David

Dear Qathuliqa,

What you say is correct . . .

But clearly, what the Melkites did raised some red flags regarding matters that went directly to the heart of faith and church unity.

While I personally applaud what they did - especially that retired Archbishop who made the original proposal in the first place - they wound up being seen not so much as being under Rome's thumb, but as being unacceptably radical in their approach to Catholic-Orthodox ecumenism.

That would have been O.K. if the Antiochian Orthodox would have themselves answered them in kind.

But they didn't and didn't really care for the Melkite initiative one iota - which is their right.

It is not that there was a Melkite-Antiochian initiative that Rome came in to quash.

There was no such common ecumenical initiative.

Rome did with the Melkites what the EP would have done with the Antiochians had they not followed up with a "non possumus" to the Melkites.

I sometimes get the impression that Orthodox thinkers see Eastern Catholic Churches as totally "under Rome" and go to some lengths to underscore the onus of that "Latin yoke" while, at the same time, giving the (false) impression that the Orthodox Churches are all free and equal to do as they please.

Tell that to the Byzantine Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem when he was excommunicated by the EP. Not told to behave, not have his knuckles rapped - excommunicated before the whole world with no appeal until he repented and did as the EP told him.

Call that what anyone likes, what the law is the law in Byzantine Orthodoxy too and the boom can be lowered there as well when the need arises.

But let's take a closer look at what the Melkites did and said at the time.

They agreed, with a few episcopal exceptions, that they accept "Everything that Orthodoxy teaches and believe that the Pope is the first among equals."

They then went a-callin' to their Antiochian Orthodox brothers and told them about it - the Antiochians were non-plussed, but courteous and had lunch with them (hardly "communicatio in sacris would you say? ).

This was Humbertus and Caerularius at Constantinople in reverse - instead of coming to hurl another anathema, the Melkites hurled a reconciliation!

It took a bit of time for this to sink in on both sides, but the Antiochian position, which is that of Orthodoxy, came out loud and clear - actual ecclesial unity was necessary, period.

And if the Melkites were truly "Orthodox in communion with Rome," then this must surely mean they agree with, if not accept as their own, the Roman doctrines that Orthodoxy has problems with.

And if they agree with them, then that is tantamount to accepting them on the level of theoria at least.

In fact, Rome saw the problem in EXACTLY the same way as the Orthodox . . .

BOTH Rome and Orthodoxy told the Melkites that they can either be with Rome or with Orthodoxy - they can't be with both right now.

The Melkites wanted to be with both and that was an unacceptably radical move on their part.

If they didn't want to be with both, they would be in communion with Orthodoxy right now.

Alex

How could if be right for one to be able to recieve communion with the Melkite Church but then be refused in all other Catholic Churches?

The proper question would be how could a Melkite receive communion in an Antiochian parish, but not in a Greek parish, since Catholics generally have no problem with Orthodox communing in their churches. But as for how this is right, I don't know (one of the painful side effects of schism?), but I can tell you it happens.

I do think Rome has a good point, at this point in time, we do not share the same faith. I will stand by that statment. Becuase if we did share the same faith there would be no issue with this as we would all be in communion already.

And this is the same point which the Orthodox made and would continue to make.

Also, there is the Canon I posted to another topic, I think it works here too.

Can. 333 �1 By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings. This reinforces and defends the proper, ordinary and immediate power which the Bishops have in the particular Churches entrusted to their care.

�2 The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling his office as supreme Pastor of the Church, is always joined in full communion with the other Bishops, and indeed with the whole Church. He has the right, however, to determine, according to the needs of the Church, whether this office is to be exercised in a personal or in a collegial manner.

�3 There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgement or a decree of the Roman Pontiff.

So Catholic Patriarchs are more free than Orthodox Patriarchs, as the original post seems to imply? I'm still not clear, in light of this, how this is so.

Rome did with the Melkites what the EP would have done with the Antiochians had they not followed up with a "non possumus" to the Melkites.

Dear Alex,

I certainly agree with this, and with everything you said before it. I thought there was no need to clarify this point, since examples of this are easy enough to find.

I sometimes get the impression that Orthodox thinkers see Eastern Catholic Churches as totally "under Rome" and go to some lengths to underscore the onus of that "Latin yoke" while, at the same time, giving the (false) impression that the Orthodox Churches are all free and equal to do as they please.

You're right. The individual Orthodox Churches are not free to do as they please. They are guardians of the faith, not creators of it.

I think the reason why some Orthodox thinkers think the way you say is because of the difference in the Catholic and Orthodox systems. Orthodoxy is about communion, while it is often difficult, at least for me, to see the communion in the Catholic Church, at least when the canons of both East and West seem to set up a monarchy or other dominating structure. True, there may not be some kind of evil dictatorship centred in Rome, but it does not seem to me to be a communion in the Orthodox sense. Perhaps it is this difference in perspective of the nature of communion that those Orthodox thinkers are getting at.

But let's take a closer look at what the Melkites did and said at the time.

They agreed, with a few episcopal exceptions, that they accept "Everything that Orthodoxy teaches and believe that the Pope is the first among equals."

And if the Melkites were truly "Orthodox in communion with Rome," then this must surely mean they agree with, if not accept as their own, the Roman doctrines that Orthodoxy has problems with.

And if they agree with them, then that is tantamount to accepting them on the level of theoria at least.

In fact, Rome saw the problem in EXACTLY the same way as the Orthodox . . .

BOTH Rome and Orthodoxy told the Melkites that they can either be with Rome or with Orthodoxy - they can't be with both right now.

The Melkites wanted to be with both and that was an unacceptably radical move on their part.

If they didn't want to be with both, they would be in communion with Orthodoxy right now.

Kinda puts a knife in the whole "Orthodox in communion with Rome" concept, huh? :p

Seriously though, in light of all this, shouldn't Eastern Catholics who promote the notion of "Orthodox in communion with Rome" realise that their position is not in fact recognised as "orthodox" by Rome or by Orthodoxy, which see it as "unacceptably radical"? I'm not saying that Eastern Catholics shouldn't be Eastern or Catholic; but the whole "Orthodox in communion with Rome" notion seems rather questionable in light of all that's been said above.

Dear Qathuliqa,

Actually, I will make the point to you that there is today no real difference in terms of the power wielded by the EP and the way the EP sees his role in Orthodoxy from that of the Roman Pope.

If anything, the EP is trying to make his Phanar look every inch a "Vatican City."

Not that there's anything wrong with that - I've argued that the EP should also have a city-state and be recognized as a secular power, just as the Pope is.

The Canons quoted MUST be seen in conjunction with others that state the Pope "shares" his government with others, especially the Patriarchs and Major Archbishops of the Eastern Churches in communion with him.

The real problem in terms of Latin Church control is with the matter of eparchies that are outside the jurisdiction of patriarchates.

And, before you say it, I'll admit that I don't understand the complexities of that situation.

But it is a problem that affects BOTH Western Churches, the Roman Catholic and the Byzantine Orthodox.

You guys in the Oriental Orthodox Churches found out a brilliant way to get around this long ago - through your Catholicosates, or "Super-Patriarchs" who have jurisdiction over their faithful around the world.

I agree that the Ukies should push not only for an acknowledged patriarchate (that acts very much as if it had real jurisdiction over Ukies all over the world) but for a Catholicosate as well.

As for what Rome does or says, it can only have power if the Eastern Church it is addressing itself to pays attention and obeys.

Shall we say that the Ukie Catholic Church has been less obedient than it once was?

Disobedience to Roman bureaucracy is a powerful tool, you know.

It disarms Vatican officials and makes them think twice about flexing their muscles in future.

And church bullying is something that occurs in Orthodoxy too - Eastern and Oriental.

Humans will be humans.

Alex

Actually, I will make the point to you that there is today no real difference in terms of the power wielded by the EP and the way the EP sees his role in Orthodoxy from that of the Roman Pope.

If anything, the EP is trying to make his Phanar look every inch a "Vatican City."

Dear Alex,

I'm spending too much time debating and not enough time studying for the exam I have tomorrow!

The real difference, I think, between the situation with the EP and that with the Pope (and I submit there is such a real difference) is that Orthodoxy does not recognise anything dogmatic as far as the EP goes other than his "powers" as defined by ecumenical councils (for example, that the EP is first among equals after Rome). The EP can attempt to do things that deviate from such norms (and I don't know enough about EO church politics to know if such things are deviations, I just know that a lot of EO's I know don't like him), but I don't think Orthodoxy recognises any dogmatic basis for what he does; it is a form of posturing. If it was part of the Orthodox faith, I don't think anyone would question it.

However, the "powers" of the Roman Pontiff are dogmatised, and even if one says that the doctrine is developing still, obviously it cannot go back to what it was before certain "infallible" proclamations were made. If Vatican I defined papal infallibility, and the doctrine is not fully developed yet, surely it can develop some more, but it cannot return to what it was before Vatican I. Dogmas develop; I don't think they can "degenerate".

Humans will be humans.

Very true. While some bully, others (like me) procrastinate.

Dear Qathuliqa,

Then don't waste your time with people like me on this forum - and get back to work, Big Guy!

Dogmatised, shmogmatized - it is the praxis, the deeds that indicate what the situation is!

It is like someone punched someone else in the face and said, "I have an acknowledged right by law to do that."

Another person punched another in the face and said, "I don't really have an acknowledged right to do that - but I did it anyway."

If that's the "real difference" as you say between the Pope and the EP, then I say it really isn't one . . .

I'm right and you're wrong, O.K.? Now that we have that settled, you can get back to work with a clear conscience . . .

God bless you on your exam tomorrow!

And quit with this stuff about the Pope - you don't need to make any enemies with St Peter - I understand he has some important keys that might come in handy . . .

(Doesn't it drive you wild that we don't go out partying together? ).

Alex

Dogmatised, shmogmatized - it is the praxis, the deeds that indicate what the situation is!

It is like someone punched someone else in the face and said, "I have an acknowledged right by law to do that."

Another person punched another in the face and said, "I don't really have an acknowledged right to do that - but I did it anyway."

If that's the "real difference" as you say between the Pope and the EP, then I say it really isn't one . . .

I'm right and you're wrong, O.K.? Now that we have that settled, you can get back to work with a clear conscience . . .

Dear Alex,

You are right, but only if you approach it from the perspective of the guy who got punched.

I submit that if the first guy actually did have the right to punch, and the other didn't, but did it anyway, there is certainly a difference there, even if the guy who suffered all this brutality doesn't see it that way.

God bless you on your exam tomorrow!

Thank you. I'll need it!!

And quit with this stuff about the Pope - you don't need to make any enemies with St Peter - I understand he has some important keys that might come in handy . . .

His successors in Antioch have been wreaking all sorts of havoc for us in India, but I honour them anyway, and I'm sure Saint Peter's problems with me are not because of my ecclesiological views...men much smarter than I have puzzled themselves over such things, and he's gonna have a problem with me? Keeping on the straight and narrow is hard enough!

(Doesn't it drive you wild that we don't go out partying together? ).

You should move to New York.

Dear Qathuliqa,

Any more guff from our Prime Minister, and I just may!

Good luck and God bless.

Speaking of punching - go knock 'em dead tomorrow, Big Guy!

Alex

reply: Dear Memo,

Have you ever read the Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby? In his book (which I am just finishing) entitled "A Voice from the Byzantine East," he has a chapter dedicated to examples of Rome's encroachments at the expense of the rights of the Eastern Catholic Churches (see the chapter: "A More Democratic Church). Refer to this for some solid examples of these.

In Christ's Light,

Ghazar Der-Ghazarian

I sometimes get the impression that Orthodox thinkers see Eastern Catholic Churches as totally "under Rome" and go to some lengths to underscore the onus of that "Latin yoke" while, at the same time, giving the (false) impression that the Orthodox Churches are all free and equal to do as they please.

I think it is very much an impression, as you said. However, there are some attitudes that may cause this impression:

1. That Eastern Catholic Patriarchates hold autonomy only in their small Patriarchal territories but not over all their faithful. It is the Pope who apoints and approves the erection of Eastern catholic Eparchies for the diaspora.

2. That no Eastern Catholic Church is allowed to canonize (or even beatify) its own saints because it is a privilege reserved for the Pope as Primate of all the Catholic Communion of Churches. But coincidently, he is also the Patriarch of the Latin Church, which canonizes a lot of saints every year. (I don't think it is fair that dozens of Italian saints are canonized every year while the canonization of Exarch Iosif Sokolsky of Bulgaria, for example, has never taken place)

3. That some of the traditions of the Eastern Church, such as married clergy or communion of infants, are not allowed in Western nations because they scandalize the Roman Bishops or may cause "confussion" among the Roman faithful.

About the Melkite-Antiochian union, I think it would have been easier if they had tried to make an agreement on the sacraments and establishing intercommunion before dialoguing about !"full communion". An agreement permitting intercommunion between Melkites and the Antiochian Patriarchate, and therefore, between Catholics and the Antiochian Patriarchate, would not have been so badly seen by other Orthodox Churches who have made those deals before, (the Russians, until 1986, for example.

Dear Remie,

Actually, the issue of setting up jurisdictions that are outside Patriarchal territories is one that has been a thorn in the side of Orthodoxy too - and issues related to this has led to the plethora of Orthodox jurisdictions in North America - I'm not saying we're any better, I'm saying we're about even!

Your third point is actually related to your first one as it involves the matter of who has jurisdiction outside the Patriarch's jurisdiction?

And I think that the issue of RC priests being "jealous" of Eastern Catholic married priests is perhaps less of a problem now than before. Eastern Catholic Churches have "come into their own" and I would say they have somewhat less direct contact with RC's today than they did when their immigrant forefathers first arrived on the North American continent and soon thereafter.

It is also a question of two different theologies of the priesthood - and of sexuality itself.

For an RC bishop to want to keep his suffering celibates away from calm, married Eastern priests is one thing - but to ask a married Eastern Catholic priest to leave a concelebration because he is married - that is something totally different (and it did happen).

I do believe that Eastern Catholic Patriarchs of the Byzantine tradition should borrow from the Oriental Church by way of the "Catholicos" role who DOES have universal jurisdiction over everyone in his Church. Fr. Petro Bilaniuk, (+memory eternal!) a professor of Eastern theology at the University of Toronto, openly promoted this idea.

I agree totally with your second point about the canonization of saints.

It is high time for the Eastern Catholic Churches to reclaim their ancient right to canonize their own saints.

Even the Pope canonizes and beatifies in accordance with different levels of territory ie. the territorial extent of the veneration of a given saint. For example, he beatified a married couple last year and their veneration goes ONLY as far as Rome itself!

We have had RC posters here who seem to have given the impression that when the Pope so much as beatifies someone that the universal Church honours the new beatus. And there is nothing further from the actual situation.

Your second point is right on and comprehensively expressed - I like it .

Alex

Dear Qathuliqa,

I am with you in soul, brother, as you write your exam today!

Just a point that you raised yesterday regarding the dogmatisation of the papal prerogatives.

Personally, I would rather know about such powers "up front" rather than not, as with the EP.

At least one would know in advance what roadblocks there are and then start thinking on how best to get around them!

Alex

Dear Brethren:

It has often been noted that the single greatest functional difference between the Latin Patriarch (Pope of Rome) and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs is the issue of their removal "for just cause" by the council/synod over which each presides. In the East, this potential for removal is institutionalized. In the West, no such procedure is allowed, other than for physical incapacitation (please correct me if I am mistaken).

My question is this: Are the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs also "removable" by the respective council/synod over which each presides?

In Christ.

I would note, on the matter of the Melkite Initiative (which, while not fully agreing with every point made, I do find a very courageous statement), the Melkites ASKED for commentary from other bodies, including the Orthodox Church and the Roman Conggreations. I think it is unfair to damn anyone for commenting on something they were invited to comment on. Certainly the Melkites legitimatixed them as parties to the discussion.

Axios