www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Future Vision of the Byzantine Catholic Church

Slava Isusu Christu!

I wanted to start a post based upon what you might think the ideal life of Bzantine Catholic Church will be like in 100 years. On the eve of the "Great Ecumenical Council", one that will unite East and West and hopefully restore the Churches and eliminate the many non-canonical things going on, what would some of our fears and hopes be as Byzantine Catholics? Will whole new Jurisdictions be created to start fresh or will we be assimilated into a mainstream Orthodox one? What are some of your visions about it be. I thought it would be interesting to see some future-focused comments about it, since we probably won't be alive to see the "Great Council of Union."

Thank you.

In Mary,


Robert

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Robert ]

Great thread idea, Robert.

If in a century the Schism hasn't already ended ... or the Parousia hasn't happened... I'd like to see the re-Orthification of the Byzantine Catholic Churches complete, and there is a good chance among the Melkites that this will happen in far less time.

"Looking back' from 2101, while with the Melkites this happened voluntarily, among the Ukrainians and especially the Ruthenians, ironically it took a lot of papal prodding and even intervention, helped along by the aging Byzantine Forum members and their descendents, some of whom were the Ruthenian Church's first married men to be ordained in 150 years.

The Melkites would merge with Antioch, the Ukrainians and Ruthenians with the future Kiev Patriarchate, Ukrainian Orthodox Church, only recently (around 2050) acknowledged by Moscow... but if there is an American Orthodox patriarchate by then, the US and Canadian Byzantine Catholics would go under that. The Russian Catholic diaspora churches would be with the OCA in the new American Orthodox patriarchate of New York. (This may happen, as it geographically makes sense, whether or not the American empire falls.)

The thus-revitalized Byzantine Catholics then would be valuable allies in the great restoration going on in the Latin Church, undoing the damage of the last century and perhaps helping the whole Church go in some new directions (like new but orthodox rites and uses, and a decentralization with national or continental patriarchates West and East). Perhaps an African Pope, following in the footsteps of (St?) "John Paul the Great' or someone even greater, would be instrumental in cleaning house (knocking the American and European liberals for a loop, as they assumed any black person would be on their side). The elderly Amchurchers would repent, or break off vagante-style to form their own "American Catholic' church, perhaps merging with the Episcopal-Lutheran denomination, and go off into oblivion.

And/or perhaps a separation of the papal roles of vicar of Christ and Roman patriarch, made manifest by the election of an Eastern Pope who remained Eastern and gave the patriarchate to a worthy Roman prelate, would bring renewed understanding and trust with the Orthodox and pave the way for the end of the breach.

The less optimistic scenarios would have the frustrated Melkites still trying to reconcile with their mother Church despite indifferent or Rome-centric future Popes, the Ukrainian Catholic Church becoming an unnatural tertium quid separate from the Orthodox tradition and the Ruthenians in America??? ...dying out as a Church with its assimilated members going Novus (John Ireland posthumously gets his wish), even Amchurch, or Protestant and secular while the Orthodox-oriented members join the Melkites or the Orthodox.

Meanwhile, the Orthodox in America are one jurisdiction again, with both multiethnic and traditional ethnic congregations and perhaps ethnic vicar bishops (but one geographical bishop per city, as ancient canons demand). There may be an American patriarch in New York. ROCOR has rejoined the Russian Church (Moscow), with some congregations in America still under Moscow along with a few of today's Patriarchal Parishes. With flexibility about a still-unresolved calendar issue, perhaps all these American churches would be in the American patriarchate too.

The adoption of the Orthodox paschalion by the West may be another development.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

Dear Robert,

I too applaud this thread! And Serge too who is so wonderful that I want to hug him!!

I personally predict that a great Union Council will have taken place within the next 100 years where the Pope and the Orthodox Patriarchs will participate as equals.

I believe the differences that have divided us will be settled, including those with the Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Churches, leading to one great act of sacramental reunion.

Ukrainian Catholics, satisfied that the Orthodox have "come back" will do as Met. Andrew Sheptytsky said and come under the omophorion of a united Ukrainian Orthodox Catholic Patriarchate based at Kyiv. The same is true of the other Byzantine Catholics.

I even foresee a time when the Pope himself will order the Byzantine CAtholics to return to the Orthodox Churches from whence they came, there being no more reason to maintain the separation.

Alex

The ideal life of Byzantine Catholic Church in 100 years will hopefully be whatever is needed and good for the pastoral care of whoever are the Byzantine Catholic people in 100 years.

The worst sin would be trying to straightjacket future generations.

K.

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Slava Isusu Christu!

WOW! How awesome! I know this is gonna be an exciting thread. I can't wait for the next post. What a fabulous post Serge. May the blessing of the Lord be upon us as we place our trust in Him!

In Christ and Mary,


Robert

"Meanwhile, the Orthodox in America are one jurisdiction again, with both multiethnic and traditional ethnic congregations and perhaps ethnic vicar bishops (but one geographical bishop per city, as ancient canons demand)."

Yipee! May it come to pass. Main obstacles I see are (1) reconciliation between ROCOR and MP (if it happens, there will certainly be a schism in ROCOR, with the anti-ecumenical wing splitting off or calling itself the "True ROCOR" or something like that), (2) getting the buy-in of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. I don't see the OCA and AA accepting being subject to the EP's jurisdiction, and unless something is changed about the EP it's unlikely that the EP would be willing to cede jurisdiction over its American dioceses. If the EP is to serve as the center of Orthodoxy it shouldn't be in Istanbul anymore, and it shouldn't always be a Greek. In any case, I think these are two formidable obstacles to this.

"There may be an American patriarch in New York."

That is something that seems logical, but again given the problems with the EP, I don't see buy-in on that one from the Phanar. Perhaps we can all take a page from Metr. Philip's proposal to move the EP to NYC? After all there are more Orthodox there than in Istanbul, and it doesn't belong to any one ethnic state.

"ROCOR has rejoined the Russian Church (Moscow), with some congregations in America still under Moscow along with a few of today's Patriarchal Parishes."

In my opinion, this will happen, but ROCOR will split over it.

"With flexibility about a still-unresolved calendar issue, perhaps all these American churches would be in the American patriarchate too."

That would be following the OCA solution, whereby Bishops can grant the right to parishes to follow the OC. There are numerous OC parishes in the OCA -- I even know of one parish with two communities (English and Slavonic), where each community follows a different calendar.

=======

"Perhaps an African Pope, following in the footsteps of (St?) "John Paul the Great' or someone even greater, would be instrumental in cleaning house (knocking the American and European liberals for a loop, as they assumed any black person would be on their side). The elderly Amchurchers would repent, or break off vagante-style to form their own "American Catholic' church, perhaps merging with the Episcopal-Lutheran denomination, and go off into oblivion."

Would be nice to see it. The personality of the Pope will be critical to what happens within the Catholic Church in the next 50-100 years. It seems unlikely that there will be another so-called "liberal" Pope for a while -- but 100 years is "a while". In addition a so-called "conservative" Pope could, with good reason, be more concerned about the issues in the largest church of the Roman communion than with ecumenical concerns with the foot-dragging Orthodox. The present ecumenical initiative of the RCC is largely, in my view, a product of the personality of the present Pope who, in light of his background, has a very positive view of the Orthodox Church. Future Popes may be well-intentioned (or perhaps less so), but it's hard to imagine a Pope that would be so, um, predisposed to be of good will towards us, particularly when we are so good at dragging our own feet.

"And/or perhaps a separation of the papal roles of vicar of Christ and Roman patriarch, made manifest by the election of an Eastern Pope who remained Eastern and gave the patriarchate to a worthy Roman prelate, would bring renewed understanding and trust with the Orthodox and pave the way for the end of the breach."

An interesting idea, but fraught with ecclesiological difficulty. ISTM that insofar as as the Pope has a church-wide role (which even Orthodoxy admits of), that this is derivative of his role as Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West. I think that the roles need, very much, to be distinguished to prevent the patriarchal from spilling over into the universal -- but, I think this needs to be done on the theoretical/theological/ecclesiological level, and not on the personal level.

"The adoption of the Orthodox paschalion by the West may be another development."

I actually give this one better than 50% of happening in the relatively near future. It's fairly easy to do, and I understand that the leading folks on this arcane issue are leaning towards the Orthodox paschalion. The only problem I can see is that there is a calendar-science issue relating to using the New Calendar of fixed feasts and the Orthodox paschalion (as the NC Orthodox presently do). In the short-term, it's not a problem, but in the medium-term and long-term it becomes a problem because, apparently, Pascha migrates forward gradually on the NC, and eventually would be served around Christmas time! The OC fixed feast has an (admittedly artificial) "reset" feature that prevents this from happening, but the more accurate NC for foxed feasts, in its enhanced accuracy, doesn't feature this. I think they would have to come up with some adjustment either to the NC for fixed feasts, or to the Paschalion itself (which will meet with resistance).

Brendan

Thanks, Alex, Robert and Brendan!

Main obstacles I see are (1) reconciliation between ROCOR and MP (if it happens, there will certainly be a schism in ROCOR, with the anti-ecumenical wing splitting off or calling itself the "True ROCOR" or something like that)

That split already has happened, actually twice, with the anti-reunion people having two options, Metropolitan Valentin of Suzdal', Russia, or the mini-ROCOR group based in Mansonville, Que., Canada, nominally under infirm former ROCOR head Metropolitan Vitaly. As I see it, now the trouble is Metropolitan Laurus and the actual ROCOR, fearing attrition to these two schisms, may put off reunion efforts. Understandable.

(2) getting the buy-in of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. I don't see the OCA and AA accepting being subject to the EP's jurisdiction, and unless something is changed about the EP it's unlikely that the EP would be willing to cede jurisdiction over its American dioceses. If the EP is to serve as the center of Orthodoxy it shouldn't be in Istanbul anymore, and it shouldn't always be a Greek. In any case, I think these are two formidable obstacles to this.

The American Orthodox Church shouldn't be under the EP anyway since the Russians and their designated successor, the OCA, have the canonical claim on these lands. Period. The EP and AA are the main obstructionists to the correction of the Orthodox mess in America, for understandable reasons — those sees, as they are now, need American money to keep going. But I don't consider the EP the center of Orthodoxy. He is not the Orthodox Pope! (Implying so is a mistake a lot of secular journalists make.) His former position in the Byzantine Empire — which has been gone a long time — doesn't make him so. Frankly I don't know what would happen to these older patriarchates in my future scenarios. It's very possible the EP will have to leave Turkey, but IMO he should move to present-day Greece! As for the main see of Arab Orthodox, perhaps, as the world gets smaller (patriarchs now can zap out encyclicals through the Internet!), there could be one strong patriarchate (instead of two relatively weak ones), in Jerusalem or perhaps in Beirut. The latter may be less problematic because there are lots of Christians in Lebanon, more perhaps than in Palestine.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

Hi Serge --

"The American Orthodox Church shouldn't be under the EP anyway since the Russians and their designated successor, the OCA, have the canonical claim on these lands. Period."

I agree with that analysis, but the EP canonists claim that the EP has jurisdiction over all of the "territories of the barbarians" per a 1st millenium council. As the EP has interpreted that, especially post-1970, that would effectively mean that the EP has jurisdiction everywhere that isn't a canonical part of one of the five ancient patriarchates -- and if that isn't a formulation for an Orthodox papacy (at least on the jurisdictional level), I don't know what is! The Russians were in North America first, it was a part of the canonical territory of the MP, so unless the EP believes it has the power to divest the MP of its canonical territory, then it has no *case* as to why it should have canonical jurisdiction in North America. Hint: I believe that the EP's canonists would argue that the EP has the power to divest anyone other than the ancient 5 Patriarchates of pieces of their territorial jurisdiction -- that's the only way, legally speaking, you can look at what the EP has done in North America (and what it's now doing in Eastern Europe).

"It's very possible the EP will have to leave Turkey, but IMO he should move to present-day Greece!"

I don't think that the Greek Synod or the Metr. of Athens really wants that, as sensible as it might be. Most importantly, I think that if the EP ever left Istanbul there would be a huge uproad in Greece (don't want to give up last tie to Constantinople). And as long as the EP is in Istanbul, with the main part of his jurisdiction created in the Orthodox diaspora in the 20th century, we're certainly going to have the problems in the diaspora that we have now.

Brendan

Dear Serge,

I was gonna ask about the separation of Papal roles which you brought up, since I felt that that was not necessary...instead of an Eastern Pope with a delegated Roman patriarch, why not have the Eastern guy become Bishop and Patriarch of Rome, and be Roman Catholic, but at the same time preserve all his Eastern sensitivities? I think that would work, and probably work better than separating things. But since Brendan addressed that, I move on to a small issue which I've wanted to know more about...

Alexandria and Antioch both have EO and OO patriarchs, and some will say the EO's are the legitimate holders of those Sees, while others (like me ) will say that it's the OO's. Never mind that for now. What about Jerusalem? Right now there's a Latin, a Greek, and an Armenian, all of whom are patriarchs of Jerusalem. But there is no "Jerusalem Church" which one can claim, as you can claim an "Alexandrian Church" or an "Antiochene Church" versus the Greek Churches in these places. Every Church is represented in Jerusalem, even the Copts and Syrians (via Metropolitans of Jerusalem) and the Ethiopians. Which Patriarch of Jerusalem (I'll leave the Copts, Syrians, and Ethiopians out ) has historic jurisdiction over the Church of Jerusalem? Just as I say the Syrian Patriarch is the true Patriarch of Antioch, and the Greeks are just there due to the movements of history, who is the true Patriarch of Jerusalem, while the others are there out of the movements of history? It seems that the Greeks, Latins, and Armenians all came from "outside". The Copts and Ethiopians too. My purely personal view is that the Syrians of all of these have the best claim, just by way of geographic closeness and a direct connection with the Church of Jerusalem, but they're not claiming it, so I leave them out of it. Maybe I'm wrong in my judgment of things...what's the story? What say you all? Thanks!

Brendan,

Do you want to clarify your statement, which might be read as approval for the hope for discord and disunity in the Catholic Church?

K.

...instead of an Eastern Pope with a delegated Roman patriarch, why not have the Eastern guy become Bishop and Patriarch of Rome, and be Roman Catholic, but at the same time preserve all his Eastern sensitivities?

Wouldn't work. Such tells the Orthodox 1) invariably, the Roman Church is higher in the Catholic scheme than any Eastern Church and 2) therefore, any Eastern who becomes super-patriarch would have to adopt his "conqueror's' religion. Not good.

As for who should be the patriarch of Jerusalem, in a reunited Church all rites would have a shot at it! The new patriarch would keep his rite and have churches of several rites under him. Just like there were once Latins under Constantinople and Greeks in Italy under Rome. Initially, on reunion, who should get the job? Well, whoever has seniority, which rules out the Latin patriarchate. As Pope Shenouda III is the true leader of apostolic Christianity in Egypt (assuming the ecumenists are right and the row with the Copts was all just a big misunderstanding aggravated by anti-Byzantine politics), so it should be in Jerusalem if the oldest continuing patriarchate there is OO.

Salaam.

http://oldworldrus.com

Kurt --

Of course I was talking about the beginning of Serge's paragraph, not the end of it (although in fairness I don't think it would be a bad thing for the RCC if the AmChurch/CTA folks would either shut up or leave -- but that's just my $0.02 from the Orthodox peanut gallery).

Brendan

Mor Ephrem --

I agree with Serge -- nothing against the OOs if they are the senior in the Patriarchate. However, we may want to take into account that the vast majority of Christians in Palestine are Arabs -- whatever Patriarchate were to succeed to jurisdiction there would have to be well-conversant with the local Arab population (boy, isn't that going to sound like a vote *against* the Greeks.... not intended, but I guess it is).

Brendan

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Brendan ]

I just have one question, does everyone really think that this will not occur in our lifetime?

That is that it will take, at a minimum, 100 years or more?


In Christ,
David

The thought of a multiritual single patriarchate with solely geographical bishops, one per city (the apostolic way), has me thinking about America. Of course such would only work when the restoration finally cleans the Latin Church of the Amchurch infestation (perhaps under the firm hand of future Pope Mbebe I!). Who would get what? As Alaska was settled first by Russian Christians, naturally I'd think the bishop of Sitka (the present Orthodox see of Alaska), Anchorage or Juneau would be Orthodox (Byzantine) with both Orthodox and Latins under him. But again, all the sees would be open to all rites. Latin Irish-Americans in Boston (no longer considered default-style Catholicism) could commemorate a Greek- or Ukrainian-American Orthodox archbishop, Orthodox Ruthenians in Ohio a Maronite Lebanese bishop and Orthodox Russians in San Francisco a Latin Mexican-American archbishop. And, ideally, it could work, as remote as it all seems now.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]