www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Synod on the Family

Dear brother Alex,

What year was it? When was the first time a correspondence to the Pope or the Vatican from the UGCC referred to the head of the UGCC as Patriarch? I'm just interested to know when the whole Catholic world can officially regard him as Patriarch (according to the prescription of Canon law mentioned in an earlier post).

Just my own opinion: I don't believe any of the patriarchates established on the authority of an existing patriarch are the equal of the Patriarchates established, recognized or affirmed by the Ecum Councils (which, naturally, includes the confirmation of the Pope of Rome, of course). This includes the ones the EP established on his authority, the ones the Pope of Rome established on his authority, and the one the Pope of Alexandria established on his authority. I don't think there is anything wrong with Patriarchs establishing other Patriarchates, so long as it is understood that the primordial Patriarchates established by the Ecum Councils have ecclesiastical precedence (not merely honorific) on matters that pertain to the Church universal -- AND, as long as newer patriarchates formally recognize the primacy (a real primacy, not merely honorific) of the head bishop of their mother Church (that's the way it works among the Churches of the Coptic Tradition, btw).

On this principle, I disagree with the pretensions of the MP to be the "third Rome." If anyone can make that claim, it is Alexandria or Antioch, not by a long shot does the ROC deserve such a claim. But I am not really concerned with the position, so much as the fact that the ROC does not seem to sufficiently acknowledge that the EP holds ecclesiastical precedence and primacy in relation to the MP.

God is a God of order, so the Church must reflect good order. The multiplication of patriarchates without a simultaneous acknowledgement of the primacy (a real primacy, not merely honorific) of the mother Church can only lead to the kind of ecclesiastical harangues that goes on among the EOC's.

As you might know, I'm not a big fan of self-proclamation, but I don't think there is anything wrong with UGCC members regarding him as their Patriarch --- in fact, I think they should.

Blessings

Well, the pontificate of Pope Paul VI was really all about a balancing act between liberals and conservatives, wasn't it?

Humanae Vitae caught many Catholics and Catholic bishops' conferences off guard. I remember Catholics actually getting up in Church during sermons proclaiming it - and leaving right there and then. Other Catholic bishops' conferences, in their "interpretation" of it (as in Austria) tended to simply tell their faithful not to be overly concerned about it.

And so very many Catholics worldwide practice artificial birth control, then and now. A traditional Catholic canonist, who went on to become a bishop, told me that when someone came to him in confession and said that he or she "was doing the best they could" but used artificial birth control - then, he said, he had to take things into consideration etc.

Pope Francis' approach is a welcoming one that has affected many, including a number of my friends and acquaintances who are now interested in Catholicism. I know because they keep asking me for catechisms and the like such as my wife's aunt who is an avowed agnostic - so far.

Alex

Dear Marduk,

Thank you for your vote of support! I'll tell the leadership of the UGCC that you believe they should call our primate a patriarch and ask them to take this under advisement immediately!

But seriously, thank you for all your painstaking thoughtfulness in all your posts.

Alex

You're welcome, brother. I also wanted to clarify that when I said I am not a fan of self-proclamation, I meant that I'm not a fan of some local Church self-proclaiming patriarchal status and trying to force it down the rest of the Church's throat. The image I have of the UGCC is one of great humility, which is why I believe there is nothing wrong with members of your Church regarding your head bishop as a patriarch. Your Church really does deserve to have patriarchal status, if not for the numbers, then for its long suffering, and for its faith.

Blessings

P.S. Enough of that - the thread's not about the UGCC.

Brother, leading up to the Synod, has Pope Francis given any hints that he supports homosexuality? The only remark I can think of that would come anywhere close to suggesting so would be the infamous and now oft regurgitated "Who am I to judge?" comment. And I admit that it was an unfortunate statement for its ambiguity. But other than this extremely brief faux pax...???

The upside to liberals is that they tend to be much bigger on the "doing" and the mercy side of the faith than conservatives. And that's critical, if we're to believe our Lord - that it's those who DO his will (which includes showing mercy at appropriate moments) that will make it to Heaven, not those who merely call him Lord and have all their doctrinal ducks lined up in a straight row.

The Church should not have "liberals" or "conservatives" to begin with. These are political terms, not religious ones. We should all simply be Catholic - faithful to God's prescriptions for human life.

Whatever the case, in the current state of affairs, both sides could really stand to learn from each other - liberals how to take more action and put more of one's heart into doing so, and conservatives how to do all that with clarity and proper direction, rather than riding on a deceptive cloud of amorphous feeling...

Wow...There's your phrase for the day: Amorphous feeling.



Peace be with you.

So, I just wanted to step in here for a second and second that comment. I really, really appreciate the "incessantly" even-handed tone of your posts, DMD. Thank you for them.

People don't care how much you know til they know how much you care, goes the saying. And it's so often true...

Pope Francis has done an unparalleled job of manifesting Christ-like behavior without compromising truth at the same time. May God grant us many, many years with this Saint.

If you check the Catholic news feeds, there's been a huge outcry from many of the bishops in regards to the draft document. It seems a lot of the bishops feel that the content did not at all reflect their discussions. The bishops have pushed back and the powers that be have now agreed to release all the reports drafted by the various "circuli minores". Here's a much better passage addressing homosexuality from Cardinal Schonborn's group
5 We have reiterated our respect and welcome homosexuals and have denounced the unjust and often violent discrimination they have suffered and still suffer at times, including in the Church, alas But that does not mean that the Church must legitimize homosexual practices, much less recognize, as do some states, a so-called homosexual “marriage”. Instead, we denounce all maneuvers of certain international organizations to impose, through financial blackmail, to poor countries of laws establishing a so-called homosexual “marriage”.

Sounds like the process that went on at Vatican II. The Curia, at that time, thought bishops would rubber-stamp documents they had prepared together with the underlying assumptions. The problem then, as now, is that bishops do take their responsibility that comes with their office seriously. It's interesting that it seems His Holiness appointed a number of "progressives"--read "liberals"--but the discussion groups elected more conservative members to lead the discussions.

Bob

Brother Talon,

If everyone saw things from this perspective, there would be *no* issue whatsoever. However, as I posted earlier in this thread:
This is what we're up against!

Not long ago, an accusation of homosexuality could be career ending in politics, as well as most areas of business (the exceptions being fashion and entertainment). People with SSAs, for the most part, either acted them out discreetly, or not at all. The 1970 decision of the APA had far-reaching implications, and almost immediately the Gay Rights movement was born. This movement has continued gaining strength every year since then, and their goal is nothing less than being treated as equal in every respect to straight people (with regard to both the law and other social institutions).

The problem here is that people are listening. A number of polls have been taken on this subject, and they have all shown a consistent pattern in which the younger someone is, the more likely it is that he/she sees no reason to discriminate in any way against LGBT people or regard their behavior as unacceptable (and it's not that they change as they get older, the numbers just keep going down).

So, what does this mean for the Church? Only that we're facing a world in which the idea of homosesuality being sinful seems increasingly ridiculous, intolerant and indefensible. In such an atmosphere, the slightest hint that the Church has "changed its position" will be taken as meaning just that, and this means that any Catholic that tries to hold out will now be ridiculed and accused of "rejecting the Church's teaching" (and bishops will have a hard time keeping gay priests in check).

The problem here is that in the world of politics, the concept of "truth" has little meaning apart from what side you take on a given issue. People generally believe what seems credible to them, based on what they understand to be true (which usually means what's been presented to them in a consistent manner).

Furthermore, ISTM there was *no* reason to go publishing a working document like that, and whoever was responsible for doing so was either woefully ignorant, or knew it would have the effect I described--and wanted that effect. (Not that I wouldn't still hope that's not the case, but ...)


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I just had a lengthy discussion with a friend from the local Catholic apologetics group. He had the same misgivings about the Synod document. I think I helped calm him down.

I explained to him that the Synod document was not about accepting homosexuality per se, but about respecting homosexuals as persons. It was not about approving of their sin, but about respecting their intrinsic human dignity.

SSA is, let's be real, considered a SIN by many Catholics, even though the Church teaches that SSA per se is not a sin. I think this document will be helpful in giving homosexuals the respect they deserve as human beings. This will inspire homosexuals to find a home in the Church, instead of rebelling against her.

I imagine people will call me a "liberal" for that. Oh well.

Blessings

That's a REALLY, REALLY good point, brother Epiphanius.

Blessings

Deacon, I hear and understand what you're saying, but feel compelled to encourage some perspective later this weekend, when I have more time.

In the interim, you were right, the document never should have been released to the public. Thought this piece was interesting...

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/evidence-emerges-of-an-engineered-synod

The piece having been offered to the forum, PLEASE, I beg everyone not to use it to start/perpetuate a mean-spirited "liberal versus conservatives" war or anything of that sort, here in this thread (or anywhere else). Remember that our battle is NOT against flesh and blood but against the principalities and powers of this present darkness per Ephesians 6. Recall also the example of Christ himself who, though he knew full well that Judas was a traitor continued to show him nothing but love in spite of it all.

Exaaaactly. When conservatives hammer home the need to get doctrine straight, this is one great example of how they too often miss the mark in spite of themselves.


Indeed. Here's an awesome talk by a former homosexual on this very matter.

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/media/daily-broadcast/how-should-we-respond-to-homosexuality-pt1

It's completely worth the $2 fee for the MP3. (And the $9 for the CD for that matter.) I really encourage everyone to listen carefully and to circulate the link far and wide...


Oh well, is right...Keep up the good work, brother.

P.S. "Former homosexual"...For whatever it's worth to anyone, all the current evidence seems to suggest that there are those with SSA who can be healed of their disorientation, and those who cannot. Just as with many other ailments in life, while God heals some, it seems that others are left with their ailment so that it will draw them closer to the Lord.