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

Dear David,

Maybe not 100 years, but a few for sure!

Let's leave it with the Spirit and pray for the unity of the Church as He wills it to be, and not as we will it to be.

No?

Have a Merry Christmas!

Did you know that "Merry Christmas" comes from the Old English "Myrige Christmass" where "Myrige" means "Holy?"

The "ge" was dropped over time and now we have a term that means something other than what it once meant.

Believe it or not. . .

Alex

Naturally the patriarch of Jerusalem would be an Arab. You're right. And in a reunion scenario, I'd think Palestinian apostolic Christians would have Arab patriarchs most of the time, naturally, owing to demographics, and not because of any discrimination. Greeks simply are a minority there.

http://oldworldrus.com

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

Well, it is likely the last native Christian will leae the Holy Land long before any reunion. The patriarchs will soon be nothing more than tourist agencies for visiting pilgrims.

K.

"Greeks simply are a minority there."

Agreed, Serge, which is why the bad track record of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem should count as a vote against them, I think.

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?"

David --

Looking at the pace of things, together with the current issues on the table, I don't think this is a "our lifetime" timeframe -- 100 years sounds a little on the low side to me, as well. My guess, which is all it is, is somewhere between 150-300 years of gradual progress, gradual growing together, with a few key breakthroughs along the way.

Brendan

...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.

Dear Serge,

How does that tell the Orthodox that the Roman Church is greater? All I see is that a member of another "sui iuris" Church was elected the head of the Roman "sui iuris" Church, and in order to serve the faithful of his diocese/patriarchate well, he became one of them. Yes, it just so happens that he's also Pope and the first among the bishops..."super-patriarch" (SP) as you say. But why would his becoming Roman from Eastern be a problem? In his function as SP it would be a benefit to him to have come from the East, but as Patriarch of the West, to be Western too, because he is also responsible for his own particular Church (Roman).

**I suppose this wouldn't happen in Eastern Orthodoxy, since all EO's (to my knowledge) share the Byzantine rite, with the exception of those Western rite folks, who (again, to my knowledge) aren't a "sui iuris" Church in communion with Antioch and the others, but are just a rite.**

I guess this brings me to the question of the Papacy itself. Is the Pope the Pope because he is Bishop of Rome, or is he Bishop of Rome because he is the Pope? I always thought that he was the Pope because he is the Bishop of Rome. Looking at it from that perspective, I always thought it was natural that the Pope should be Latin (if I am wrong, and he is Bishop of Rome because he is Pope, then please let me know).

And if an Eastern man becoming Pope and becoming Latin would be such a bad thing (as you say), then I think the idea of an Eastern Pope is not good. What follows from that, I suppose, is not only that Eastern prelates shouldn't be Cardinals (who are members, at least nominally, of the clergy of the Diocese/Metropolitan Province of Rome), but they shouldn't have the right to vote for the Pope (since they aren't Roman clerics). In our democratic age, I doubt anyone would like this, and I don't like it particularly myself, but if it is not good for an Eastern guy to become Roman because he was elected Pope, Patriarch of the West, and Bishop of Rome, then I feel that the Pope being Roman is more important for the people of his diocese and particular Church than having Eastern guys participate in the vote.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I don't think "Pope" and "Bishop of Rome" should be separated.

So after all that, am I completely off my rocker? :p

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Mor Ephrem ]

Dear Catholicos,

What are you doing asking an Orthodox about these questions? (Kidding, kidding).

In a reunited Church, the patriarchates would be equal, even if some would be "first among equals."

Therefore, as Sergey said, to try and get an Easterner to be Pope would be like saying, "O.K., O.K. we'll let one of you Eastern guys be Pope for a while to show we like you etc."

There were, of course, Greek and Syrian Popes.

There was also a Greek Archbishop of Canterbury, St Theodore of Tarsus.

"Pope" is actually a term that came from you Oriental Orthodox fellows.

It was first used by the Pope of Alexandria who, incidentally, was the first Patriarch to declare an immediate jurisdiction over every single church and priest throughout Africa.

In fact, most of the rights the Roman Pope has today are based on the example and tradition of Alexandria. Even the idea of papal universal supremacy is ultimately descended from the title and role of the Oriental "Catholicos." (Do you see how important you are?)

At the zenith of Christian Alexandria's glory, the Roman Pontiff was simply "His Beatitude" and his immediate jurisdiction did not even include all of Italy.

The Pope actually bears nine titles and roles that are all interrelated with one another: Bishop of Rome, Primate of Italy, Metropolitan-Archbishop of the Roman Province etc.

To become Pope is to hold all nine titles simultaneously.

Normally, the Pope is of the Latin Rite. But Pope Paul VI was of the Milanese Rite.

Ultimately it is not a question of whether an Easterner can be Pope (there were Easterners who were at a time when the church had much greater liturgical uniformity), but a question of how Rome exercises her authority and Petrine Ministry in relation to other Churches.

Alex

Dear Alex,

There you have it. Normally the Pope is of the Latin rite, but Paul VI was of the Milanese rite. It is generally accepted, to my knowledge (that's my phrase of the day I think) that the Milanese rite is just that--a rite of the Latin Church. But the issue is not rites, but Churches. So it would be nothing if someone went from one rite to another within the same particular Church as Paul VI did (Milanese to Latin, but the same Latin Church). But what about an Armenian becoming Pope of Rome (such as Card. Agaginian, suggested during the period after Pius XII and before John XXIII), or some other member of another Church? That's the issue with me...

Both the Orthodox and Catholics will finally become Christian.

I will now post an emotional and controversial post.

Edwin is right. Most Catholics and Orthodox do NOT act Christian.

What unchurched person gives a flip about ecumenical councils? About the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit? About whether St. Gregory Palamas is reconcilable with St. Thomas Aquinas? About Papal Infallibility?

I am NOT saying these issues are not important--they are. BUT reunion is in my opinion not really going to happen on the basis of some supercouncil. I believe that one will have to eventually be called to make some Orthodox happy, but really, that will be the culmination of a defacto union based on our NEED to cooperate in a post-Christian culture.

Let's try to LOVE one other SO THAT with one mind we may profess....

anastasios

But he did. From the particular church of the Metropolia of Milan to the Metropolia of Rome, as the current Universal Pastor went from the Krakow Metropolia to the Roman. Remember, particular church can be anything - Metropolia, eparchy, parish, etc.

Which raises the next question:


I say abolish the patriarchates. Every Metropolia be given the perogatives formerly with the patriarchs..

K.

Dear Serge,

Your concern for the beauty of God's house is a constant source of inspiration to me. It is echoed in the posting here.

While reading and learning from these visions of the future of the Byzantine Catholic Chruch, I became aware, not for the first time, of a curious behavior on your part.

You wrote:
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. (Serge above)

I ask with all charity, from whence comes your apparent need to express your dissatisfaction with the majority of the Latin Church and it practices. In a thread on the vision of the Byzantine Chruch of the future you suggest that the Byzantine Church of the present is acting in appropriately. Your apparent dislike throws your posting out of kilter, IMO. It side tracks the discussion unnecessarily.

The above portion of your posting does not seem to add to the vision of Byzantine Chruch in the future. Your comments here suggest that our hosts should or will somehow come to the assistance of a great restoration in the future that is different from the one begun by Vatican II. Their contributions at that Council are legend not to be ignored or to be disregarded. The Eastern Catholic Churches were our Sister Chruches then; and they are our Sister Churches in our ongoing efforts to renew our Church today

There is nothing remarkable in that now and there will be nothing remarkable about that in the future. We are family and family helps family to grow. I, personally, treasure the help of my Eastern and Oriental brothers and sisters. The Latin Church cherishes them as is made clear by the words of the Pope and the Council. I believe that they will be in the future a bridge between our Communions by respecting the truth found in both.

Is you suggestion that there is some restoration
in the Latin Catholic Chruch taking place apart from our Patriarch or hierarchy and that the Byzantine Catholics will become instrumental in developing an opposition to their mandates? I think that such a suggestion is inappropriate given the history of Latin Church and of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Is your suggestion that the Eastern Catholic Church will assist a group of Latin Catholics who are unhappy and dissatisfied with their Church to subvert lay members or even members of the hireacrchy from the rest of that Chruch? If so, your words seem to cast the purported future actions of Eastern and Oriental Catholics in their Communion in a poor light in contrast to the behavior that they have consistently exhibited. They are members of our Communion today and we, in the Latin Chruch share that communion.

Your words seem to suggest that the Latin Church consists of the small number of dissatisfied members who disagree with the teaching of our Hierarchs and who reject the disciplinary and liturgical practices mandated by our Hierarchy. Are they, the Hierarchy, the liberals that you refer to; are they the ones who would be eliminated in the purported house cleaning by the future Pope?

If this is what you suggest, your words misrepresent the reality of what the Latin Church is. You misrepresent one of the Sister Churches of the Byzantine Catholic Church and the validity of her practices. It is not an Amchurch abberation.

If that is the case, are you suggesting that the Byzantine Catholic Church of today is acting incorrectly by maintaining its historic communion. This seems to be a conclusion that one might reach if your suggestions are really what the appear to be.

You share many insights with the rest of us, Serge. Your words about the Latin Chruch bend reality to a perception that is not the one that our bishops and the Pope guide us in living. This section of your posting throws it out of kilter especially when you toss in what you perceive to be a charge of a kind of racism into the hopper.

What are you talking about, Serge? Am I right in discerning a bias here? This discussion is about the future of faith communities. It is not about conservative or liberal.

Are you really saying what it appears that you are saying? I don't understand. I hope that my conclusions and reading of what you are suggesting is in error.

If it is, please accept my apology.

If not, what ever are you saying in a BYZANTINE CATHOLIC FORUM about BYZANTINE CATHOLICS who are catholic, among other things, because of their communion with the Pope who is the Patriarch of the West? He is the Patriarch of the Latin Chruch with whom our hosts are in Communion.

Is this section about the future of the Byzantine Catholic Church or about someone's wish list for things to make the Latin Church fit someone else's mold?

Fraternally,

Steve
JOY!

Steve, I had a hard time reading your post but here is a try at an answer. The condition of the Latin Church in practice does matter because 1) the Byzantine Catholic are in communion with it and 2) the issue matters to Orthodox if the end of the Schism is a goal that's taken seriously.

My occasional criticisms of the state of the Latin Church, mostly about it in practice, are not out of place in a discussion of ecumenical matters and I shall continue writing on this topic where it is relevant, unless a moderator revokes my membership. There have been posters here who were out-and-out Catholic-bashers engaging in Internet trollery and have got away with it; I think I can stand on my reputation here as not being one of those.

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear David,

I hope, in my lifetime. I want to live to see it.

Who would have thought in my life-time, since the II Vatican Council, I would have seen the progress that I have?

With the help of God...

Elias

Hi,

The Ruthenian Church in The US is a Sui Iuris Church. We are in Communion with the Pope of Rome not under the jurisdiction of the Roman Church .The RC and the OC should be talking to us not about us.I feel as part of this Church that if a reunion should occur Our Hierarchs should be asked about what direction our Church will take.Not be told. I don't think Churches should disappear or be absorbed into one another.Being in Communion doesn't mean that.Being a loyal member of the Metropolia I think all other Churches should be under our jurisdiction. :p


Nicky's Baba

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Nicky's Baba ]