www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Practical Reforms of the Papacy

Newest Members

Regf2, SomeInquirer, Wee Shuggie, Bodhi Zaffa, anaxios2022
5,881 Registered Users

Who's Online Now

1 members (1 invisible), 301 guests, and 26 robots.

Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod

Latest Photos

Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24

Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
by akemner, April 8

Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
by OEFNavyVet, April 4

Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
by Irish Melkite, February 27

Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11

Forum Statistics

Forums26

Topics35,219

Posts415,299

Members5,881

Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019

Print Thread

Page 1 of 7

Practical Reforms of the Papacy #233340 05/05/07 03:01 PM
Joined: Jan 2002 Posts: 429 Fort Wayne, IN Adam DeVille OP Member
OP Adam DeVille Member Joined: Jan 2002 Posts: 429 Fort Wayne, IN	If you, as an Eastern Christian theologian seeking to respond to the late Pope John Paul II's request for help in reforming the papacy so that it could be acceptable to the Christian East, were to respond to this request, what PRACTICAL reforms would you suggest needed to be undertaken for each of the following institutions? i) The Roman Curia ii) The College of Cardinals iii) The Synod of Bishops iv) Universal jurisdiction, canonical territory, pentarchy. How would you propose they be reformed? Or should they be abolished? Are there other institutions you would wish to create within the papacy to make it more acceptable?

Re: Practical Reforms of the Papacy Adam DeVille #233342 05/05/07 03:17 PM
Joined: Jun 2002 Posts: 5,264 somewhere betwixt the Alpha an... ebed melech Member
ebed melech Member Joined: Jun 2002 Posts: 5,264 somewhere betwixt the Alpha an...	One initial suggestion would be to create a standing synod of Eastern and Western patriarchs. Also, Patriarchs should have the full right to name bishops for their churches outside of their traditional geographic territories. More thoughts to come... Gordo

Re: Practical Reforms of the Papacy ebed melech #233346 05/05/07 03:41 PM
Joined: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,555 New York ElijahmariaX Member
ElijahmariaX Member Joined: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,555 New York	Originally Posted by ebed melech One initial suggestion would be to create a standing synod of Eastern and Western patriarchs. Also, Patriarchs should have the full right to name bishops for their churches outside of their traditional geographic territories. More thoughts to come... Gordo I've been led to believe that Patriarchs do not "name" bishops. I've been told they like the rest of the bishops have one vote and no greater power in the election of bishops than that. This is part of the reason why, it seems to me, that I have read papers by Orthodox scholars who say that the pentarchy is not today what it once was. Which leads me to question the idea that only the papal Church has changed her governing practices. But I could, of course, be very wrong in all this. And would like to know more about Greek and Russian practices and about some of the oriental Orthodox governing practices as well. Mary

Re: Practical Reforms of the Papacy ElijahmariaX #233479 05/07/07 02:00 PM
Joined: Nov 2001 Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 Canada Orthodox Catholic Member
Orthodox Catholic Member Joined: Nov 2001 Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 Canada	Dear Adam, Studies of the way the Church of Rome was governed prior to Pope St Pius I, as you know, suggest that there was a college of bishops at the City of Rome itself with the "bishop of Rome" being the most senior among them - only later did Rome have one bishop. Papal reforms affecting the Eastern Catholic Churches would also affect the Catholic West - even though the two are different ecclesiastical entities. The biggest issue is that of the style of the Petrine Ministry and here is where RC traditionalists and liberals will always disagree. Pope Urban VIII and his "Unam Sanctam" springs to mind immediately. Some suggest that if "Unam Sanctam" is binding to this day, then all of it must be binding, meaning that the Pope's authority even over the secular world must be an infallible doctrine and this is something the contemporary RC Church has not affirmed. In Richard McBrien's "Lives of the Popes" he has this to say about Pope Urban VIII: "He had a uniquely inflated sense of his own personal and political importance as well as of the papal office he held; albeit undersuspicious electoral circumstances. He commissioned or permitted so many statues of himself that he was accused of encouraging idolatry. He declared that papal authority extends over every creature in the world and he even dressed occasionally in imperial regalia because he regarded himself as much an emperor as a pope. He also did incalculable harm to the image of the papacy and the Church for centuries to come. Historically naive and theologically uninformed Catholics continue to cite him today as if his exaggerated claims of papal authority, even over the political realm, are, in fact, consistent with the will of Christ."(p. 437). The veneer of papal triumphalism, dating from Pope Boniface and his "Unam Sanctam" needs to be put to bed for good by Rome today before meaningful reform of the Petrine Ministry can take place. There is a kind of papal triumphalism also associated with the dogma of infallibility which can be, I believe, "recast" in a way that would be consonant with the way in which the formerly united Church of Christ would have agreed with it. This should be balanced, however, with a more realistic and historically accurate assessment of papal history and Rome should drop the idea that Popes were somehow always both orthodox in faith and morals. Although a saint, Pope Marcellinus (+304), complied fully with Diocletian's orders to hand over sacred Scripture to be burned and to offer incense to the Roman gods. Some early Christian witnesses do not give his name in the list of popes as a result, but his cult as a martyr following the tradition that he repented and was then killed is confirmed. Pope Liberius is actually not such a bad case since he yielded to pressure to agree to the excommunication of St Athanasius of Alexandria. Rome itself, however, refused to honour him with the honours of the altar as a result of his moral weakness - but Eastern Church honours him as a full saint. Pope Vigilius who followed the above is acknowledged as both devious and manipulative. He agreed that the heresy of Eutychianism/Monophysitism was "orthodox" and his stand on the teaching of the Council of Nicea was so bad that a local Council in north Africa actually excommunicated him. Pope Honorius (yes, we keep coming back to him) in one of his two letters to Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople actually DOES affirm that there is only one Will in Christ and was anathematized by the Sixth Council (that was actually VERY pro-papal otherwise). To get around saying he was not a heretic or that he was imprudent in his expression etc. would oblige one to extend the same sort of consideration to others who were heretical, but were not protected against the full charge of heresy because they were not popes. St Maximos the Confessor was himself punished severely because, as a lowly monk, he dared to tell the Church leaders of his day that their worldwide union was false, based as it was on heresy. The fact that there were popes who were less than heroic, who were implicated with heresy etc. should NOT be grounds to dismiss the Petrine Ministry - in fact, they should be grounds to AFFIRM it even more within the context of the role of the pope within the wider ecclesial context of Tradition that we are all called upon to defend etc. The fact of the existence of immoral popes, like Alexander VI and others, points to the need for a mechanism by which a pope may be deposed. It is because popes have been heralded as "church emperors" in history that led to the election of popes who were of the type of Alexander VI and other sensually-minded men of the day. Papal history should not be "rewritten" but by presenting it in its fullness, warts and all, the office of the Petrine Ministry can be reassessed and redesigned to allow for the autonomy of the Eastern Churches (and the various "union agreements" of the EC Churches have NO precedent prior to the Schism and, as in the case of the UGCC, the original Union of Brest agreement came not be worth the paper it was written on). I'd start there. Alex

Re: Practical Reforms of the Papacy Orthodox Catholic #233481 05/07/07 02:06 PM
Joined: Nov 2001 Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 Canada Orthodox Catholic Member
Orthodox Catholic Member Joined: Nov 2001 Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 Canada	Dear Mary, Patriarchs and Major Archbishops can name bishops, but they do it within the context, of course, of their Synods. Various Eastern Churches have developed different ways of self-governance and it was the See of Alexandria that first gave to its head the title of "Pope" as we know who had full jurisdiction over every priest and church throughout the length and breadth of Africa. In the UGCC right now there is a real crisis over this since our Patriarch (not recognized by Rome, but recognized by the UGCC)and his Synod names bishops while Rome chooses not to recognize these decisions. When our new Eparch, Stephan, was consecrated, there developed a real 'tug of war' right in the church with Patriarch Lubomyr affirming that he and his synod chose Vladyka Stephan two years before but then the Papal Nuncio going on to say that it was HE who convinced Stephan to become Bishop etc. People were left shaking their heads . . . For Rome, through its papal nuncios, to exercise that kind of governance over what is the largest EC Church and against the stated wishes and actions of the UGCC Patriarch/Primate and his Synod gives a very bad example to other Churches with respect to what happens after one comes into union with Rome. It cannot be called "communion with" but "subjection to" Rome. We oppose it and we believe we are right in opposing it, beginning with the leadership of our Patriarch Joseph the Hieroconfessor who spent 18 years in Siberia for his faith. Alex

Re: Practical Reforms of the Papacy Orthodox Catholic #233485 05/07/07 02:32 PM
Joined: Feb 2003 Posts: 2,217 Illinois L Lawrence Member
Lawrence Member L Joined: Feb 2003 Posts: 2,217 Illinois	I'm interested in hearing more about this need for a mechanism by which a Pope may be deposed. I've heard alot of pros and cons on this already with positions that it can be done, it can never be done, and if it's necessary that God will strike a Pope dead.

Re: Practical Reforms of the Papacy Lawrence #233491 05/07/07 03:09 PM
Joined: Nov 2001 Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 Canada Orthodox Catholic Member
Orthodox Catholic Member Joined: Nov 2001 Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 Canada	Dear Lawrence, As things stand now, the only reason for a vacancy in the papal office is death or a resignation that is made freely and duly manifested - but "not accepted by anyone" ie no one is authorized to receive the resignation of a pope. Canon law makes no provision for situations in which a pope may go into a coma or suffer a disability that prevents him from exercising his office. There is also no regimen to follow to depose a pope who has fallen into heresy. There is also no recourse against an act of the Roman Pontiff. If one tries to do that, go against a papal act by having recourse to an ecumenical council or the college of bishops, that person is to be punished with censure. In canon law, the pope is truly an absolute monarch who cannot be removed from office by ANYONE other than the incumbent pope himself. There have been times when popes (26 in total) have been removed from office, permanently or temporariliy, by secular or religious authority without the recognition of that action by the Church. Pope St Marcellinus, since he complied with the pagan emperor's orders to hand over scriptures and to sacrifice to the gods (in courts of law, as per Roman custom) was apparently deposed for this and his name was ommitted from lists of popes. One of Marcellinus' deacons who later became pope himself, St Marcellus, condemned all Christians who gave in to the Romans etc. obviously including in that his predecessor, St Marcellinus. St Marcellinus' action would have automatically disqualified him from the priesthood, let alone the papacy. Pope Eugenius IV was deposed from office on Jan.24, 1438 by conciliar delegates who oppposed his transfer of the council of Florence to Ferrara and then to Florence. Eugenius challenged the ecumenicity of the early phases of the Council of Constance and condemned the Council of Basel. It was only until King Alfonso of Naples ordered bishops to withdraw suppport for the antipope Felix V that Pope Eugenius could return to Rome after an absence of nine years. There are other examples, none too pleasant. Alex

Re: Practical Reforms of the Papacy Orthodox Catholic #233495 05/07/07 03:54 PM
Joined: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,411 USA A AMM Member
AMM Member A Joined: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,411 USA	Speaking as a member of an Orthodox Church (and certainly as no theologian), I don't think my opinion in this regard really matters a whole lot. Not letting that stop me however... I think reform of the Papacy (the first three bullets in the thread are not things I could really comment on) would be difficult to achieve for a number of reasons. A significant one I think is highlighted in this article and the responses to it - http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/OXFORD.htm I think what is pointed to in the article is there internal issues in the Roman Catholic Church that are as knotty as any issues of interrelations between churches. Personally speaking, I'm just not sure what can be done. Although sympathetic to and appreciative of many aspects Catholicism; I can also say I think some of the foundational claims of the present day RCC (along with some other stuff) I find simply unacceptable, historically inconsistent or just plain wrong. So even if somehow the bishops all said they would accept intercommunion without any either side changing anything, that still wouldn't work for me. I don't advocate major reforms either though - A. because it's not really any of my business and B. because I think it could create a lot of havoc in the RCC. Last edited by AMM; 05/07/07 03:54 PM.

Re: Practical Reforms of the Papacy AMM #233498 05/07/07 04:08 PM
Joined: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,555 New York ElijahmariaX Member
ElijahmariaX Member Joined: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,555 New York	Originally Posted by AMM Personally speaking, I'm just not sure what can be done. Although sympathetic to and appreciative of many aspects Catholicism; I can also say I think some of the foundational claims of the present day RCC (along with some other stuff) I find simply unacceptable, historically inconsistent or just plain wrong. So even if somehow the bishops all said they would accept intercommunion without any either side changing anything, that still wouldn't work for me. I don't advocate major reforms either though - A. because it's not really any of my business and B. because I think it could create a lot of havoc in the RCC. That's clear as mud, boss. Mary

Re: Practical Reforms of the Papacy Orthodox Catholic #233499 05/07/07 04:12 PM
Joined: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,555 New York ElijahmariaX Member
ElijahmariaX Member Joined: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,555 New York	Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic Dear Mary, Patriarchs and Major Archbishops can name bishops, but they do it within the context, of course, of their Synods. Various Eastern Churches have developed different ways of self-governance and it was the See of Alexandria that first gave to its head the title of "Pope" as we know who had full jurisdiction over every priest and church throughout the length and breadth of Africa. In the UGCC right now there is a real crisis over this since our Patriarch (not recognized by Rome, but recognized by the UGCC)and his Synod names bishops while Rome chooses not to recognize these decisions. When our new Eparch, Stephan, was consecrated, there developed a real 'tug of war' right in the church with Patriarch Lubomyr affirming that he and his synod chose Vladyka Stephan two years before but then the Papal Nuncio going on to say that it was HE who convinced Stephan to become Bishop etc. People were left shaking their heads . . . For Rome, through its papal nuncios, to exercise that kind of governance over what is the largest EC Church and against the stated wishes and actions of the UGCC Patriarch/Primate and his Synod gives a very bad example to other Churches with respect to what happens after one comes into union with Rome. It cannot be called "communion with" but "subjection to" Rome. We oppose it and we believe we are right in opposing it, beginning with the leadership of our Patriarch Joseph the Hieroconfessor who spent 18 years in Siberia for his faith. Alex Dear Alex, I didn't clip any of your note so that you'd know I am not discounting the UGCC experiences. But my real concern was the statement by Orthodox clerics and monks that their Patriarchs have no more power or authority, in the conciliar system, than their one vote in the election of bishops that was equal to every other vote, and not more equal. Is this so, or is it not? What would cause an otherwise unimpeachable set of sources to be in such dramatic error, if it is not true? If it is true then things have changed in the Orthodox hierarchy over time. Mary

Re: Practical Reforms of the Papacy Orthodox Catholic #233501 05/07/07 04:19 PM
Joined: Jun 2006 Posts: 84 Akron, OH C CRW Member
CRW Member C Joined: Jun 2006 Posts: 84 Akron, OH	The Latin Church needs to develop intermediate structures that are effective so that the operating style of the papacy can reflect the principle of subsidiarity. In this respect the episcopal conferences have failed miserably. Father Reardon wrote somewhere that he is glad that the Catholics have a strong, lower-case orthodox Pope because they need one. Of course, he does not think that the Orthodox need any such institution. When the Latin Church gets over its addiction to centralized control, serious discussion can begin over how the papal ministry can be useful to the Christian East. This process can't really begin as long as large segments of Catholicism interpret V2 as a fundamental break with the past.

Re: Practical Reforms of the Papacy CRW #233506 05/07/07 04:47 PM
Joined: Nov 2001 Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 Canada Orthodox Catholic Member
Orthodox Catholic Member Joined: Nov 2001 Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 Canada	Dear Mary, Well, once again, you've put your finger on a central "pulse" issue here! The way governance is exercised in the Orthodox Churches varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Having had two uncles who were once Russian Orthodox priests (they are now with the UGCC after it came out of the catacombs and became a legalized entity), I am informed that the Moscow Patriarchate can be quite the bureaucratic system with a very powerful Primate (i.e. "What part of 'no' don't you understand?" model of governance . . .). Then there is the governance of the Monastery of Mt Sinai ("Can we please discuss why you shouldn't do this apart from my saying you shouldn't?" model of governance . . .). You are absolutely right - evolution has occurred and even though there is an ideal of governance set down by tradition and the councils, as you've indicated, the practical way of doing governance varies. Alex

Re: Practical Reforms of the Papacy Orthodox Catholic #233558 05/08/07 01:06 AM
Joined: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,555 New York ElijahmariaX Member
ElijahmariaX Member Joined: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,555 New York	Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic Dear Mary, Well, once again, you've put your finger on a central "pulse" issue here! The way governance is exercised in the Orthodox Churches varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Having had two uncles who were once Russian Orthodox priests (they are now with the UGCC after it came out of the catacombs and became a legalized entity), I am informed that the Moscow Patriarchate can be quite the bureaucratic system with a very powerful Primate (i.e. "What part of 'no' don't you understand?" model of governance . . .). Then there is the governance of the Monastery of Mt Sinai ("Can we please discuss why you shouldn't do this apart from my saying you shouldn't?" model of governance . . .). You are absolutely right - evolution has occurred and even though there is an ideal of governance set down by tradition and the councils, as you've indicated, the practical way of doing governance varies. Alex Yes. Already in the preparations for the bilateral discussion of the Petrine ministry the statement has been made from the Orthodox side that things are no longer as they were with the pentarchy in the first thousand years. Then the question has been raised among the Orthodox scholars also, whether or not the patriarchs had real power and authority in the first thousand years. And the answer to that came back yes they did. Then the question, again among the Orthodox scholars, was raised: did the pope in Rome have a primacy of honor that was real and not just a titular honor, and the answer also came back in the affirmative. So, I think that once Orthodoxy accepts her own developments over the centuries, and decides where she is now, or where she'd like to be, then we can do more with regularizing those relationships with a Roman system of governance, whatever that becomes or looks like, as we would be on the approach to resumption of communion. The fact that the Orthodox need to work out some of their own interior kinks, in terms of governance, seems to me to be every bit as important a development in all of this as anything else. Perhaps nothing needs to change there except to admit to a certain inconsistency across jurisdictions, or at another level, to be willing to accept that there is real power and authority in the patriarchates, not just one man-one vote. It might then be seen as possible that the real issue is not the power or the authority as a God-given gifts of governance for the Body of Christ, but the way that the patriarchs choose to exercise that power and authority that is most important. There is no sin in inconsistancy as long as one is able to actually admit to the realities and live with them peacefully, and accommodate one another. Mary Last edited by Elijahmaria; 05/08/07 01:09 AM.

Re: Practical Reforms of the Papacy ElijahmariaX #233559 05/08/07 01:30 AM
Joined: Sep 2006 Posts: 501 Canada O Orest Member
Orest Member O Joined: Sep 2006 Posts: 501 Canada	Quote I've been led to believe that Patriarchs do not "name" bishops. I've been told they like the rest of the bishops have one vote and no greater power in the election of bishops than that...And would like to know more about Greek and Russian practices and about some of the oriental Orthodox governing practices as well. Mary Just to clarify, whay you have said inthe first sentence is true. Please see the statute of the Russian Orthodox Church which is available online at: http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=162 Please see the chapter regarding the Sobor and elections: Quote Chapter II 1. The supreme power in the field of doctrine and canonical order in the Russian Orthodox Church shall belong to the Local Council. 2. The terms of convening the Local Council shall be determined by the Bishops' Council. In exceptional cases the Local Council may be convened by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (or the Locum Tenens) and by the Holy Synod. The responsibility for the preparation of the Local Council shall be borne by the Bishops' Council, which shall elaborate the programme, agenda, rules of procedure of the sessions and the structure of the Council, give its preliminary assent to them and submit them to the Local Council for approval and shall also take other decisions pertaining to the holding of the Local Council. In the event the Local Council is convened by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (or the Locum Tenens) and the Holy Synod, the proposals on the programme, agenda, rules of procedure of the sessions and the structure of the Local Council shall be approved by the Bishops' Council, which session shall obligatory precede the Local Council. 3. Diocesan and vicar bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church shall be members of the Council ex officio. 4. The Bishops' Council shall determine the procedure of the election of delegates from among clergymen, monastics and laymen to the Council and their quota. In exceptional cases the procedure of the election to the Council of the delegates from among clergymen, monastics and laymen and their quota shall be determined by the Holy Synod with subsequent approval by the Bishops' Council. 5. The Local Council shall: a) interpret the teaching of the Orthodox Church on the basis of the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition, while maintaining doctrinal and canonical unity with the Local Orthodox Churches; b) resolve canonical, liturgical and pastoral matters, while securing the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church and preserving the purity of the Orthodox faith, Christian morals and piety; c) approve, change, annul and explain its decisions pertaining to the church life in accordance with 5a) and 5b) of this section; d) approve the decisions of the Bishops' Council pertaining to the doctrine and canonical order; e) canonize the saints; f) elect the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and establish the procedure for election; g) determine and adjust the principles of relations between the Church and the state; h) express, if need be, the concern for contemporary problems. 6. The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia shall preside over the Council, and the Locum Tenens shall preside in the absence of the Patriarch. 7. The quorum of the Council shall be 2/3 of the legally elected delegates, including 2/3 of bishops out from the total number of member bishops of the Council. 8. The Council shall approve the agenda, programme, rules of procedure of the sessions and the structure of the Council, elect the Presidium and Secretariat by simple majority of those present members of the Council and shall form the necessary working bodies. 9. The Presidium of the Council shall consist of the Chairman (the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Locum Tenens) and twelve members of the Council in the rank of a bishop. The Presidium shall guide the sessions of the Council. 10. The Secretariat of the Council shall consist of the Secretary in the rank of a bishop and two assistants - a clergyman and a layman. The Secretariat shall be responsible for providing the members of the Council with all necessary working materials and for keeping minutes of the sessions. The minutes shall be signed by the Chairman, the members of the Presidium and the Secretary. 11. The Council shall elect the chairmen (in the rank of a bishop), the members and the secretaries of the working bodies established by the Council by simple majority. 12. The Presidium, the Secretary and the chairmen of the working bodies shall comprise the Advisory Board of the Council. The Advisory Board shall be the governing body of the Council. Its terms of reference shall include: a) consideration of the emerging questions on the agenda and submission of the proposals on the order in which the Council shall consider them; b) coordination of the entire activities of the Council; c) consideration of the matters of procedure and protocol; d) administrative and technical provision of the normal work of the Council. 13. All member bishops of the Council shall comprise the Bishops' Conference. The Conference shall be convened by the Chairman of the Council on his initiative, by the decision of the Advisory Board of the Council or on the proposal of no less than 1/3 of the bishops. The task of the Conference shall include the discussion of those decisions of the Council, which are of a special importance and which provoke doubts from the point of view of their conformity with the Holy Scriptures, Holy Tradition, dogmas and canons, as well as from the point of keeping church peace and unity. In the event that a certain decision of the Council or its part are rejected by the majority of the bishops present, it shall be put forward for another consideration by the Council. If after that the majority of the bishops present at the Council reject it, it shall lose its force of the Council's decision. 14. The opening of the Council and its daily sessions shall be preceded by the celebration of the Divine Liturgy or any other appropriate divine service in accordance with the rubrics. 15. The sessions of the Council shall be chaired by the Chairman, or, on his proposal, by one of the members of the Presidium of the Council. 16. The invited theologians, experts, observers and guests may take part in the open sessions of the Council, besides its members. The extent of their participation shall be determined by the rules of procedure, but in any case they shall have no right to participate in the vote. The members of the Council shall have the right to propose a closed session. Note: the election of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia shall be held in closed session. 17. The decisions of the Council shall be taken by the majority of votes, except special cases, stipulated by the rules of procedure adopted by the Council. In the event of a tie in open vote, the Chairman shall cast the deciding vote. In the event of a tie in secret vote, another vote shall be held. 18. All official documents of the Council shall be signed by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (or by the Locum Tenens), the members of the Presidium and the Secretary. 19. The decisions of the Council shall take effect immediately after their adoption. http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=163 [quote] Chapter II 1. The supreme power in the field of doctrine and canonical order in the Russian Orthodox Church shall belong to the Local Council. 2. The terms of convening the Local Council shall be determined by the Bishops' Council. In exceptional cases the Local Council may be convened by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (or the Locum Tenens) and by the Holy Synod. The responsibility for the preparation of the Local Council shall be borne by the Bishops' Council, which shall elaborate the programme, agenda, rules of procedure of the sessions and the structure of the Council, give its preliminary assent to them and submit them to the Local Council for approval and shall also take other decisions pertaining to the holding of the Local Council. In the event the Local Council is convened by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (or the Locum Tenens) and the Holy Synod, the proposals on the programme, agenda, rules of procedure of the sessions and the structure of the Local Council shall be approved by the Bishops' Council, which session shall obligatory precede the Local Council. 3. Diocesan and vicar bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church shall be members of the Council ex officio. 4. The Bishops' Council shall determine the procedure of the election of delegates from among clergymen, monastics and laymen to the Council and their quota. In exceptional cases the procedure of the election to the Council of the delegates from among clergymen, monastics and laymen and their quota shall be determined by the Holy Synod with subsequent approval by the Bishops' Council. 5. The Local Council shall: a) interpret the teaching of the Orthodox Church on the basis of the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition, while maintaining doctrinal and canonical unity with the Local Orthodox Churches; b) resolve canonical, liturgical and pastoral matters, while securing the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church and preserving the purity of the Orthodox faith, Christian morals and piety; c) approve, change, annul and explain its decisions pertaining to the church life in accordance with 5a) and 5b) of this section; d) approve the decisions of the Bishops' Council pertaining to the doctrine and canonical order; e) canonize the saints; f) elect the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and establish the procedure for election; g) determine and adjust the principles of relations between the Church and the state; h) express, if need be, the concern for contemporary problems. 6. The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia shall preside over the Council, and the Locum Tenens shall preside in the absence of the Patriarch. 7. The quorum of the Council shall be 2/3 of the legally elected delegates, including 2/3 of bishops out from the total number of member bishops of the Council. 8. The Council shall approve the agenda, programme, rules of procedure of the sessions and the structure of the Council, elect the Presidium and Secretariat by simple majority of those present members of the Council and shall form the necessary working bodies. 9. The Presidium of the Council shall consist of the Chairman (the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Locum Tenens) and twelve members of the Council in the rank of a bishop. The Presidium shall guide the sessions of the Council. 10. The Secretariat of the Council shall consist of the Secretary in the rank of a bishop and two assistants - a clergyman and a layman. The Secretariat shall be responsible for providing the members of the Council with all necessary working materials and for keeping minutes of the sessions. The minutes shall be signed by the Chairman, the members of the Presidium and the Secretary. 11. The Council shall elect the chairmen (in the rank of a bishop), the members and the secretaries of the working bodies established by the Council by simple majority. 12. The Presidium, the Secretary and the chairmen of the working bodies shall comprise the Advisory Board of the Council. The Advisory Board shall be the governing body of the Council. Its terms of reference shall include: a) consideration of the emerging questions on the agenda and submission of the proposals on the order in which the Council shall consider them; b) coordination of the entire activities of the Council; c) consideration of the matters of procedure and protocol; d) administrative and technical provision of the normal work of the Council. 13. All member bishops of the Council shall comprise the Bishops' Conference. The Conference shall be convened by the Chairman of the Council on his initiative, by the decision of the Advisory Board of the Council or on the proposal of no less than 1/3 of the bishops. The task of the Conference shall include the discussion of those decisions of the Council, which are of a special importance and which provoke doubts from the point of view of their conformity with the Holy Scriptures, Holy Tradition, dogmas and canons, as well as from the point of keeping church peace and unity. In the event that a certain decision of the Council or its part are rejected by the majority of the bishops present, it shall be put forward for another consideration by the Council. If after that the majority of the bishops present at the Council reject it, it shall lose its force of the Council's decision. 14. The opening of the Council and its daily sessions shall be preceded by the celebration of the Divine Liturgy or any other appropriate divine service in accordance with the rubrics. 15. The sessions of the Council shall be chaired by the Chairman, or, on his proposal, by one of the members of the Presidium of the Council. 16. The invited theologians, experts, observers and guests may take part in the open sessions of the Council, besides its members. The extent of their participation shall be determined by the rules of procedure, but in any case they shall have no right to participate in the vote. The members of the Council shall have the right to propose a closed session. Note: the election of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia shall be held in closed session. 17. The decisions of the Council shall be taken by the majority of votes, except special cases, stipulated by the rules of procedure adopted by the Council. In the event of a tie in open vote, the Chairman shall cast the deciding vote. In the event of a tie in secret vote, another vote shall be held. 18. All official documents of the Council shall be signed by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (or by the Locum Tenens), the members of the Presidium and the Secretary. 19. The decisions of the Council shall take effect immediately after their adoption. http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=163 Regarding the Patriarch: Quote 12. The right of judgement on the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia as well as the decision on his retirement shall belong to the Bishops' Council. http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=165

Re: Practical Reforms of the Papacy Orest #233580 05/08/07 12:36 PM
Joined: Nov 2001 Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 Canada Orthodox Catholic Member
Orthodox Catholic Member Joined: Nov 2001 Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 Canada	Dear Mary, You are more than correct, of course, and thank you for such scholarly and reflective posts! The experiences of the UGCC with her struggle to establish her own patriarchate could, I believe, serve to illustrate the discussion of episcopal jurisdiction East and West. When Patriarch Joseph returned from Siberia, despite his age and what he suffered, he got into the "full swing" of things at Rome. Then "Ost-Politik" took hold of the Church and his plans for a patriarchate recognized by Rome were thwarted (in fact, Rome could not bring itself to tell the old Confessor that his request was denied - instead, Rome asked two of our own Basilian priests to do that ignominious task, a task they readily agreed to do). The rest is history, but reflects the division we have between those who support the patriarchal structure of governanace and those who don't understand why the UGCC wants such a structure since we are "Catholics and have the Pope." Over time, new lessons were learned, however. With our current Primate (who does not call himself "Patriarch" as he wishes Rome to do the honours first), the UGCC in Ukraine and abroad has a renewed optimism and sense of herself as a Particular Church whose renewal and resurrection from the catacombs of soviet oppression is based on the faith of her pillars, Met. Andrew Sheptytsky and Pat. Joseph Slipyj as well as her martyrs. The thing is that we are already sensing ourself as a patriarchal Church. Whether Rome recognizes it or not seems to have taken second place. When Pope John Paul II visited Ukraine, Pat. Lubomyr was openly called "Patriarch" in the Pope's presence - and the Pope said nothing about it . . . "Qui tacet consentire?" There is tension between Rome and our Synod, but, for the most part, Rome now seems genuinely disinterested in what the UGCC Synod is up to jurisdictionally. And that is a good thing! Rome refuses to canonize Andrew Sheptytsky and Josef Slipyj, but their icons and pictures are everywhere in my eparchy and moreso than any other martyrs or confessors. (My parish has a large icon of Josef Slypyj on the "Proskomydinyk" or side altar on which the preparations are made for the Liturgy - one can see it clearly when the diaconal doors are opened. I must add my dismay when I read on the website of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate a commentary about the visit of the Ukrainian President to Rome where he will visit the former living quarters of Pat. Joseph Slipyj - the commentator titled his article "President to visit quarters of the Spiritual Father of Ukrainian Nazis." The Russian Orthodox Church, for some reason, is out, in a big way, to discredit Pat. Joseph Slipyj. And no wonder - he opposed the Soviet Union's destructiion of the EC Church and refused to become a member of the Soviet Union's Orthodox church, preferring, rather, to spend 18 years in Siberia. Pat. Joseph is an ongoing icon witnessing to the evil that was the Soviet Union - but why the supposed "new Russia" needs to be concerned about the condemnation of the old system is beyond telling - or is it? Alex

Page 1 of 7

Moderated by Alice, Father Anthony, Irish Melkite

Link Copied to Clipboard