www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Communion with Rome, comment/claim on EWTN

You're a little late , this ^^ is what the guy on EWTN said (except he didn't even make it a question, but flatly said that you can't be in communion with Rome and not be a subsidiary).

You mean the document that the Melkite Patriarch wouldn't sign his name to?

I'm on the verge of talking about "Orthodox in communion with Rome" ... but it's probably better that I point out that even for PA-believing Catholics, there's a large question of interpretation: "subsidiary" is a very strong interpretation.

Well, perhaps as Christians we are all subsidiaries. Papa Francesco keeps reiterating that he is "Servant of the Servants of God". However, juridically, "subsidiaries" is a very strong word to use in respect to the bishops vis a vis the Bishop of Rome. They are no more his subsidiaries than are the fifty governors in respect to the President of the United States. The analogy limps a bit because they are two different realms, but I think jurisdictionally it fits and conveys a similar relationship. Collegiality and Synodality offer some checks and balances, so to speak, and there's always those "voices from the pews".

Also, one Russian Orthodox Bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate that I came into contact with at the legislature privately indicated to me that in a number of respects RC bishops have much more jurisdictional autonomy than does he with respect to the MP.

He said that this situation is what has led a few ROC bishops to actually make a personal and private act of union with . . . the Pope! If there is any truth to that, it would be a repeat of the circumstances that led to the Union of Brest (although the latter was on a much grander scale) in 1596.

Alex

If the UGCC is a "subsidiary" with respect to Rome, then someone should inform our patriarch and his synod about this turn of events!

Our patriarchal synod certainly doesn't act like it is a subsidiary to anyone and whenever Rome goes over its head and appoints a bishop in the diaspora, the synod issues a press release expressing profound shock and dismay (perhaps even disbelief). The appointee, in any event, travels to see his patriarch in person to get his blessing before accepting such an appointment.

Rome is just going to have to get used to that . . .

Alex

With all due respect, I'm just wondering why Swan appears to have such an axe to grind against the EC's?

Alex

Alex, I think the current pope is more likely to not interfere with eastern churches than his predecessors. He seems willing to let them run their own affairs and has been quite helpful on the topic of married clergy.

Yes, I agree!

Have to say that Swan's comments are not without merit, nevertheless.

Rome seems to have moved from a policy of interference in EC affairs at every turn to the one you aptly describe.

The next step, which would be a great boon to ecumenism, is to allow the EC's an active role in the reclaiming of a number of their own traditions that are theirs by right of them being Orthodox to begin with.

It is very nice that Rome, for example, appears to willing to move ahead with the beatification of Metropolitan Andrew of Galicia.

But the fact that EC Churches cannot locally glorify their own saints for their own liturgical veneration is a serious breech of historic Eastern tradition.

That, to me, is the next step and direction in which the EC's ought to move.

Alex

Hi Alex. Unfortunately, I'm not at liberty to answer that for you. Using my powers in that way would violate an oath I took many years ago.